Todor Arnaudov:
Socialization
>Overall, the value drift “selects” for increasingly general instrumental motives, -
>they simply last longer, being conditioned by correspondingly broad range of associated prior values.
Also, more general instruments could allow doing more with less efforts in less time - generalization can be optimization.
>Childish impulsiveness is substantially displaced by adolescent egocentrism,
>which in turn is displaced by increasingly broad socialization.
Then sometimes it's followed by selective de-socialization/cha
for subjects who has reached to understanding of the reasons for their prior socialization, because it's conditioned as well.
>This development of broader "self" is initiated by specific inherited motives: somatosensory feedback,
>imitation & respect for authority, the patterns of human beauty, sexual drives, parental instincts, the need for
>social support & status, empathy or altruism.
I'd question that respect of authority is inherited motive, authority just can punish you or you're afraid it can/will; and you believe it's more capable and more dangerous than you, you respect it because of this and because you believe that others believe that it is, and they may punish you as well.
Respect of authority can be derived very simply: the only "animate object" for a new born mind are mother, father etc. They are dynamic and harder to predict, unlike environment; they change "randomly" sometimes, they are there when needs are satisfied and they are missing when needs are not satisfied (or are there where mind is punished), they are older, bigger, have money and decide instead of you etc. This can be badly conditioned. Further church (where it has this access to people), school, police, army, government etc. make people respect authority by displaying their "authority" == force and superiority.
I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around. I guess all of those are initiated the same/similar way as respect of authority and have common source. Also they are a form of optimization/maximiz
...
However in a world with only one person who doesn't know that other intelligent beings have existed or could have existed, there couldn't be altruism or social support at all. If one is capable and secure enough to be "untouchable" in a normal world with billions of agents needing social support, he also may escape from the social support urge, I guess you know an example
I guess patterns of human (physical) beauty and general visual beauty (graphics design etc.) are implicitly inherited, they are rediscovered and shared by many because of our common cognitive algorithm.
Last edited Jan 12, 2011 11:23
PM
Report abusive comment
0
>Also,
more general instruments could allow doing more with less efforts in less time -
generalization can be optimization.
Obviously, but I was trying to explain how instruments can become more psychologically important than their original purpose.
> Then sometimes it's followed by selective de-socialization/cha
> for subjects who has reached to understanding of the reasons for their prior socialization, because it's conditioned as well.
Right.
>I'd question that respect of authority is inherited motive, authority just can punish you or you're afraid it can/will; and you believe it's more capable and more dangerous than you, you respect it because of this and because you believe that others believe that it is, and they may punish you as well.
Respect for authority is inseparable from imitation instinct, - that’s how you choose who to imitate. Imitation is accellerated aquisition of knowledge learned by others. That’s a core of social instinct, & some animals are obviously more inherently social than others. Another part of it is a “follow the leader” instict, necessary for many group actions, & also common for all social animals.
>I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around. I guess all of those are initiated the same/similar way as respect of authority and have common source. Also they are a form of optimization/maximiz
It’s hard to distinguish between inherited & acquired parts, but most basic values have inherent element to speed-up subsequent conditioning. But “inherited” does not mean “permanent”, it can be inhibited just like acquired motives.
>However in a world with only one person who doesn't know that other intelligent beings have existed or could have existed, there couldn't be altruism or social support at all.
In such situation the “person” would not feel as an individual, rather as a society / ecosystem of his constituents.
>I guess you know an example
I am sure there’s more than one, most for a wrong reason. I don’t run on a different algorithm, but my stimulus-to-response delay is much longer than what's decent & proper (if the stimulus is novel).
>I guess patterns of human (physical) beauty and general visual beauty (graphics design etc.) are implicitly inherited, they are rediscovered and shared by many because of our common cognitive algorithm.
There’re many different elements to beauty, the most abstract part is simply a balance between pattern & novelty that one finds intellectually stimulating at the moment.
Obviously, but I was trying to explain how instruments can become more psychologically important than their original purpose.
> Then sometimes it's followed by selective de-socialization/cha
> for subjects who has reached to understanding of the reasons for their prior socialization, because it's conditioned as well.
Right.
>I'd question that respect of authority is inherited motive, authority just can punish you or you're afraid it can/will; and you believe it's more capable and more dangerous than you, you respect it because of this and because you believe that others believe that it is, and they may punish you as well.
Respect for authority is inseparable from imitation instinct, - that’s how you choose who to imitate. Imitation is accellerated aquisition of knowledge learned by others. That’s a core of social instinct, & some animals are obviously more inherently social than others. Another part of it is a “follow the leader” instict, necessary for many group actions, & also common for all social animals.
>I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around. I guess all of those are initiated the same/similar way as respect of authority and have common source. Also they are a form of optimization/maximiz
It’s hard to distinguish between inherited & acquired parts, but most basic values have inherent element to speed-up subsequent conditioning. But “inherited” does not mean “permanent”, it can be inhibited just like acquired motives.
>However in a world with only one person who doesn't know that other intelligent beings have existed or could have existed, there couldn't be altruism or social support at all.
In such situation the “person” would not feel as an individual, rather as a society / ecosystem of his constituents.
>I guess you know an example
I am sure there’s more than one, most for a wrong reason. I don’t run on a different algorithm, but my stimulus-to-response delay is much longer than what's decent & proper (if the stimulus is novel).
>I guess patterns of human (physical) beauty and general visual beauty (graphics design etc.) are implicitly inherited, they are rediscovered and shared by many because of our common cognitive algorithm.
There’re many different elements to beauty, the most abstract part is simply a balance between pattern & novelty that one finds intellectually stimulating at the moment.
Report abusive comment
>Also,
more general instruments could allow doing more with less efforts in less time -
generalization can be optimization.
>>Obviously, but I was trying to explain how instruments can become more psychologically important than their original purpose.
I meant that association areas may not inhibit primary cortices but serve for optimization of lower ones' tasks, and all can develop together. Going too abstract without connection to reality may lead you to insanity or helplessness and vulnerability, I don't think too strong association areas *without* solid enough lower levels is healthy. Also, in order to create a thinking machine or any machine, one needs physical technology, someones' minds should develop it.
>But “inherited” does not mean “permanent”, it can
> be inhibited just like acquired motives.
OK
>Respect for authority is inseparable from imitation instinct, - that’s how you choose who to
> imitate.
>Imitation is accellerated aquisition of knowledge learned by others. That’s a core of social
> instinct, & some animals are obviously more inherently social than others. Another part of it is a
> “follow the leader” instict, necessary for many group actions, & also common for all social
> animals.
>It’s hard to distinguish between inherited & acquired parts, but most basic values have inherent
> element to speed-up subsequent conditioning. But “inherited” does not mean “permanent”, it can
> be inhibited just like acquired motives.
My concern is about the abstractness and fanciness of terms. “Acquisition of knowledge learned by others” is complex and implies understanding of concepts of others, while I guess it might be simple such as:
- Detect important input (dynamic, novel)
- Record
- Replay / Compensate (follow) to keep it as input
It turns to seem “social” because it always happen around other individuals, while (I guess) it would work with fake stimuli. Imitation (record-replay) is the simplest form of filling procedural memory (or any memory) if it was empty or when mind lacks experience to decide on its own. Choosing what to record/ (what's important) as “respect of authority” could be recognition of the most frequent/strongest/d
Baby initially has no choice, but imitating/mapping (recording senses into empty mind) and “respecting authority” (helplessness). Eventually it disrespects it (egocentrism, self-identification)
>>However in a world with only one person who doesn't know that other intelligent beings have existed or could have existed, there couldn't be altruism or social support at all.
>In such situation the “person” would not feel as an individual, rather as a society / ecosystem of his constituents.
Well, this is true even now (at least for the ones who are smart enough); we're not “individuals” and there's no integrated “self”, it's a degree of generalization and resolution of covered space, time, scope, conceptual clarity etc.
>There’re many different elements to beauty, the most abstract part is simply a balance between >pattern & novelty that one finds intellectually stimulating at the moment.
Agreed.
A “lower” kind of beauty I see is the associations to stimuli of pleasure/need, such as pictures of nudity. The concepts are confused.
>>Obviously, but I was trying to explain how instruments can become more psychologically important than their original purpose.
I meant that association areas may not inhibit primary cortices but serve for optimization of lower ones' tasks, and all can develop together. Going too abstract without connection to reality may lead you to insanity or helplessness and vulnerability, I don't think too strong association areas *without* solid enough lower levels is healthy. Also, in order to create a thinking machine or any machine, one needs physical technology, someones' minds should develop it.
>But “inherited” does not mean “permanent”, it can
> be inhibited just like acquired motives.
OK
>Respect for authority is inseparable from imitation instinct, - that’s how you choose who to
> imitate.
>Imitation is accellerated aquisition of knowledge learned by others. That’s a core of social
> instinct, & some animals are obviously more inherently social than others. Another part of it is a
> “follow the leader” instict, necessary for many group actions, & also common for all social
> animals.
>It’s hard to distinguish between inherited & acquired parts, but most basic values have inherent
> element to speed-up subsequent conditioning. But “inherited” does not mean “permanent”, it can
> be inhibited just like acquired motives.
My concern is about the abstractness and fanciness of terms. “Acquisition of knowledge learned by others” is complex and implies understanding of concepts of others, while I guess it might be simple such as:
- Detect important input (dynamic, novel)
- Record
- Replay / Compensate (follow) to keep it as input
It turns to seem “social” because it always happen around other individuals, while (I guess) it would work with fake stimuli. Imitation (record-replay) is the simplest form of filling procedural memory (or any memory) if it was empty or when mind lacks experience to decide on its own. Choosing what to record/ (what's important) as “respect of authority” could be recognition of the most frequent/strongest/d
Baby initially has no choice, but imitating/mapping (recording senses into empty mind) and “respecting authority” (helplessness). Eventually it disrespects it (egocentrism, self-identification)
>>However in a world with only one person who doesn't know that other intelligent beings have existed or could have existed, there couldn't be altruism or social support at all.
>In such situation the “person” would not feel as an individual, rather as a society / ecosystem of his constituents.
Well, this is true even now (at least for the ones who are smart enough); we're not “individuals” and there's no integrated “self”, it's a degree of generalization and resolution of covered space, time, scope, conceptual clarity etc.
>There’re many different elements to beauty, the most abstract part is simply a balance between >pattern & novelty that one finds intellectually stimulating at the moment.
Agreed.
A “lower” kind of beauty I see is the associations to stimuli of pleasure/need, such as pictures of nudity. The concepts are confused.
Report abusive comment
> I
meant that association areas may not inhibit primary cortices but serve for
optimization of lower ones' tasks
I don’t see how it relates to the subject, & “optimization” doesn’t sound very meaningful. More general value-loaded concepts direct lower levels’ spatio-temoral focus, & adjust their detail vs scope balance. Is that what you meant?
>Going too abstract without connection to reality may lead you to insanity or helplessness and vulnerability, I don't think too strong association areas *without* solid enough lower levels is healthy.
“Higher association areas” are in the best position to decide on the balance between induction & deduction. Their “strength” is the degree of control over lower levels’ focus, not necessarily greater degree of generalization overall. Insanity is the *lack* of intellectual integrity, - disruption of higher levels or their connections to the lower ones. Helplessness, vulnerability? Well, you make your best guess & take chances. The outcome is never certain, but the alternative is... mediocrity.
>“Acquisition of knowledge learned by others” is complex and implies understanding of concepts of others,
No it doesn’t, knowledge is always partial, especially second-hand.
> It turns to seem “social” because it always happen around other individuals, while (I guess) it would work with fake stimuli. Imitation (record-replay) is the simplest form of filling procedural memory (or any memory) if it was empty or when mind lacks experience to decide on its own. Choosing what to record/ (what's important) as “respect of authority” could be recognition of the most frequent/strongest/d
>Baby initially has no choice, but imitating/mapping (recording senses into empty mind) and “respecting authority” (helplessness). Eventually it disrespects it (egocentrism, self-identification)
Yet, some people seem to be a lot more social than others, even if you control for upbringing & intelligence. But it’s easier to see in animals, just compare different breeds of dogs. And there’s been plenty of evidence on the effects of oxytocin, which you’ve been going off about. That’s genetics, google prairie vole + oxytocin. As for authority, it probably has something to do with testosterone or lack thereof.
>Empathy is seeing yourself in the shoes of others, it's praised while it might be a mirrored-egoism.
No, it’s recognizing yourself in others, & then *conditioning by similarity*, a category different & independent from instrumental conditioning. That’s basic enough to be an inherited mechanism, right? Obviously, on the level of self-identification, it’s a lot stronger in social animals (& in women).
I don’t see how it relates to the subject, & “optimization” doesn’t sound very meaningful. More general value-loaded concepts direct lower levels’ spatio-temoral focus, & adjust their detail vs scope balance. Is that what you meant?
>Going too abstract without connection to reality may lead you to insanity or helplessness and vulnerability, I don't think too strong association areas *without* solid enough lower levels is healthy.
“Higher association areas” are in the best position to decide on the balance between induction & deduction. Their “strength” is the degree of control over lower levels’ focus, not necessarily greater degree of generalization overall. Insanity is the *lack* of intellectual integrity, - disruption of higher levels or their connections to the lower ones. Helplessness, vulnerability? Well, you make your best guess & take chances. The outcome is never certain, but the alternative is... mediocrity.
>“Acquisition of knowledge learned by others” is complex and implies understanding of concepts of others,
No it doesn’t, knowledge is always partial, especially second-hand.
> It turns to seem “social” because it always happen around other individuals, while (I guess) it would work with fake stimuli. Imitation (record-replay) is the simplest form of filling procedural memory (or any memory) if it was empty or when mind lacks experience to decide on its own. Choosing what to record/ (what's important) as “respect of authority” could be recognition of the most frequent/strongest/d
>Baby initially has no choice, but imitating/mapping (recording senses into empty mind) and “respecting authority” (helplessness). Eventually it disrespects it (egocentrism, self-identification)
Yet, some people seem to be a lot more social than others, even if you control for upbringing & intelligence. But it’s easier to see in animals, just compare different breeds of dogs. And there’s been plenty of evidence on the effects of oxytocin, which you’ve been going off about. That’s genetics, google prairie vole + oxytocin. As for authority, it probably has something to do with testosterone or lack thereof.
>Empathy is seeing yourself in the shoes of others, it's praised while it might be a mirrored-egoism.
No, it’s recognizing yourself in others, & then *conditioning by similarity*, a category different & independent from instrumental conditioning. That’s basic enough to be an inherited mechanism, right? Obviously, on the level of self-identification, it’s a lot stronger in social animals (& in women).
Report abusive comment
>I
don’t see how it relates to the subject, & “optimization” doesn’t sound very
meaningful. More general value-loaded concepts direct lower levels’
spatio-temoral focus, & adjust their detail vs scope balance. Is that what
you meant?
I'm not sure, sorry to bother you.
> Their “strength” is the degree of control over lower levels’ focus, not necessarily greater degree of generalization overall.
Aha, OK.
>>Going too abstract without connection to reality may lead you to insanity or helplessness and >>vulnerability, I don't think too strong association areas *without* solid enough lower levels is >>healthy.
>“Higher association areas” are in the best position to decide on the balance between induction &
>deduction. Their “strength” is the degree of control over lower levels’ focus, not necessarily
> greater degree of generalization overall. Insanity is the *lack* of intellectual integrity, - disruption
> of higher levels or their connections to the lower ones. Helplessness, vulnerability?
>Well, you make your best guess & take chances. The outcome is never certain, but the alternative is... mediocrity.
I guess hypertrophy of higher levels in parallel with too much of inhibition of the lower ones may disrupt these connections and endanger the existence of the higher “arrogant” level itself.
For example, one may embrace AGI/progress/general
>Yet, some people seem to be a lot more social than others, even if you control for upbringing &
> intelligence. But it’s easier to see in animals, just compare different breeds of dogs. And there’s
> been plenty of evidence on the effects of oxytocin, which you’ve been going off about. That’s
> genetics, google prairie vole + oxytocin. As for authority, it probably has something to do with
> testosterone or lack thereof.
Sure there is inherited part in the extent of being “social”, I can't question this. I'm speculating about the extent/complexity of what actually is inherited and what is the core of being “social” (etc.) and not in terms of chemicals. I suspect it's coarse and simple, like sort of a tuning of thresholds for “fixating” stimuli. Respect of authority seems too general a term to me. I tried to speculate on some mechanisms regarding “dominance” with more functional terms, I'd better put it in an article or so.
>>Empathy is seeing yourself in the shoes of others, it's praised while it might be a mirrored-egoism.
>No, it’s recognizing yourself in others, & then *conditioning by similarity*,
I know about similarity, I guess this is how people empathize animals and why use to empathize higher animals much more than lower and are less likely to feel guilty about hurting insects or plants than mammals or birds. However I classify recognizing *yourself*“ and similarity to *yourself* as “egoism”.
>it’s recognizing yourself in others, & then *conditioning by similarity*,
>a category different & independent from instrumental conditioning.
>That’s basic enough to be an inherited mechanism, right? Obviously, on the level of self->identification
OK, it's basic and conditioning by similarity is different from instrumental conditioning, however CbS is one part of the empathy process, which can be seen as relayed operant conditioning - when empathizing a suffering person, you suffer with him and you want to fix his pain in order to fix *your* pain, etc.
I'm not sure, sorry to bother you.
> Their “strength” is the degree of control over lower levels’ focus, not necessarily greater degree of generalization overall.
Aha, OK.
>>Going too abstract without connection to reality may lead you to insanity or helplessness and >>vulnerability, I don't think too strong association areas *without* solid enough lower levels is >>healthy.
>“Higher association areas” are in the best position to decide on the balance between induction &
>deduction. Their “strength” is the degree of control over lower levels’ focus, not necessarily
> greater degree of generalization overall. Insanity is the *lack* of intellectual integrity, - disruption
> of higher levels or their connections to the lower ones. Helplessness, vulnerability?
>Well, you make your best guess & take chances. The outcome is never certain, but the alternative is... mediocrity.
I guess hypertrophy of higher levels in parallel with too much of inhibition of the lower ones may disrupt these connections and endanger the existence of the higher “arrogant” level itself.
For example, one may embrace AGI/progress/general
>Yet, some people seem to be a lot more social than others, even if you control for upbringing &
> intelligence. But it’s easier to see in animals, just compare different breeds of dogs. And there’s
> been plenty of evidence on the effects of oxytocin, which you’ve been going off about. That’s
> genetics, google prairie vole + oxytocin. As for authority, it probably has something to do with
> testosterone or lack thereof.
Sure there is inherited part in the extent of being “social”, I can't question this. I'm speculating about the extent/complexity of what actually is inherited and what is the core of being “social” (etc.) and not in terms of chemicals. I suspect it's coarse and simple, like sort of a tuning of thresholds for “fixating” stimuli. Respect of authority seems too general a term to me. I tried to speculate on some mechanisms regarding “dominance” with more functional terms, I'd better put it in an article or so.
>>Empathy is seeing yourself in the shoes of others, it's praised while it might be a mirrored-egoism.
>No, it’s recognizing yourself in others, & then *conditioning by similarity*,
I know about similarity, I guess this is how people empathize animals and why use to empathize higher animals much more than lower and are less likely to feel guilty about hurting insects or plants than mammals or birds. However I classify recognizing *yourself*“ and similarity to *yourself* as “egoism”.
>it’s recognizing yourself in others, & then *conditioning by similarity*,
>a category different & independent from instrumental conditioning.
>That’s basic enough to be an inherited mechanism, right? Obviously, on the level of self->identification
OK, it's basic and conditioning by similarity is different from instrumental conditioning, however CbS is one part of the empathy process, which can be seen as relayed operant conditioning - when empathizing a suffering person, you suffer with him and you want to fix his pain in order to fix *your* pain, etc.
Report abusive comment
>I
guess hypertrophy of higher levels in parallel with too much of inhibition of
the lower ones may disrupt these connections and endanger the existence of the
higher “arrogant” level itself.
I hate to repeat, but optimal degree of inhibition (or otherwise) can only be determined by those higher levels, & the higher the better. The only disadvantage is slower reaction time, - longer feedback loop. That’s bad in an emergency, but there aren’t many of those in modern life, unless you’re asking for it.
>For example, one may embrace AGI/progress/general
Right, it’s all equaly meaningless. If you’re clueless, gutless, & like to stay that way.
> Sure there is inherited part in the extent of being “social”, I can't question this.
I thought you did: “I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around.”
>I'm speculating about the extent/complexity of what actually is inherited and what is the core of being “social” (etc.) and not in terms of chemicals.
Initial drives + conditioning by similarity (imitation & empathy) + instrumental conditioning (obedience & social identification).
> I suspect it's coarse and simple, like sort of a tuning of thresholds for “fixating” stimuli. Respect of authority seems too general a term to me. I tried to speculate on some mechanisms regarding “dominance” with more functional terms, I'd better put it in an article or so.
More time wasting.
>I guess this is how people empathize animals and why use to empathize higher animals much more than lower and are less likely to feel guilty about hurting insects or plants than mammals or birds.
Right.
>However I classify recognizing *yourself*“ and similarity to *yourself* as “egoism”.
I though you realize that egotism is meaningless concept, the real question is how broad & abstract the “ego” is. And conditioning by similarity increases both.
I hate to repeat, but optimal degree of inhibition (or otherwise) can only be determined by those higher levels, & the higher the better. The only disadvantage is slower reaction time, - longer feedback loop. That’s bad in an emergency, but there aren’t many of those in modern life, unless you’re asking for it.
>For example, one may embrace AGI/progress/general
Right, it’s all equaly meaningless. If you’re clueless, gutless, & like to stay that way.
> Sure there is inherited part in the extent of being “social”, I can't question this.
I thought you did: “I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around.”
>I'm speculating about the extent/complexity of what actually is inherited and what is the core of being “social” (etc.) and not in terms of chemicals.
Initial drives + conditioning by similarity (imitation & empathy) + instrumental conditioning (obedience & social identification).
> I suspect it's coarse and simple, like sort of a tuning of thresholds for “fixating” stimuli. Respect of authority seems too general a term to me. I tried to speculate on some mechanisms regarding “dominance” with more functional terms, I'd better put it in an article or so.
More time wasting.
>I guess this is how people empathize animals and why use to empathize higher animals much more than lower and are less likely to feel guilty about hurting insects or plants than mammals or birds.
Right.
>However I classify recognizing *yourself*“ and similarity to *yourself* as “egoism”.
I though you realize that egotism is meaningless concept, the real question is how broad & abstract the “ego” is. And conditioning by similarity increases both.
Report abusive comment
> Sure
there is inherited part in the extent of being “social”, I can't question
this.
>>I thought you did: “I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited >>as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around.”
Yes, I don't think "social" is inherited in your terms, oxytocin etc. are inherited, which is very far from empathy or respect of authority. If there is no environment with "animate objects", interactive unpredictable input expected to be capable to cause harm or be useful etc. the dog or human will not be "social". "Social" is a vague high-level classification.
>>I thought you did: “I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social support are not inherited >>as well, they are product of the environment and availability of competing agents around.”
Yes, I don't think "social" is inherited in your terms, oxytocin etc. are inherited, which is very far from empathy or respect of authority. If there is no environment with "animate objects", interactive unpredictable input expected to be capable to cause harm or be useful etc. the dog or human will not be "social". "Social" is a vague high-level classification.
Report abusive comment
>>I
thought you did: “I think also that empathy, altruism, the need of social
support are not inherited >>as well, they are product of the environment
and availability of competing agents around.”
> Yes, I don't think "social" is inherited in your terms, oxytocin etc. are inherited, which is very far from empathy or respect of authority...
The mechanism of the drive to imitate & empathize is conditioning by similarity. That’s a core of being social, & is inherited. The outcome obviously isn’t, I said it many times.
This is more fundamental than I realized, I’ll post a new edit in a few days to elaborate on that, here’re some drafts:
This development of broader "self" is initiated by specific inherited motives: somatosensory feedback, the urge to imitate & the need for authority, the drive for status to gain a reciprocal imitation & authority, patterns of human beauty, sexual drives, parental instincts, empathy & the need for social support: reciprocal empathy...
The broadest inherited drive appears to be empathy / altruism. However, it’s not independently definable: empathy is mediated by recognition of self-image & values in others. This is actually a different type of conditioning: by similarity rather than by instrumental utility. Just like instrumental conditioning, it started as a vehicle for “selfish gene”: similarity is the only way animals can recognize genetic affinity, & then act to preserve & propagate common genes. This is particularly imprtant for social animals, such as us. Affinity also guides imitation, - we’re more likely to imitate those similar to us (other things being equal). That’s a “charisma” element of authority, - competence & power is not enough, to be effective a leader must seen as “one of us”...
And cognition is a higher form of evolution,- a concept conditioned by affinity as a progenitor of humanity & beyond...
> Yes, I don't think "social" is inherited in your terms, oxytocin etc. are inherited, which is very far from empathy or respect of authority...
The mechanism of the drive to imitate & empathize is conditioning by similarity. That’s a core of being social, & is inherited. The outcome obviously isn’t, I said it many times.
This is more fundamental than I realized, I’ll post a new edit in a few days to elaborate on that, here’re some drafts:
This development of broader "self" is initiated by specific inherited motives: somatosensory feedback, the urge to imitate & the need for authority, the drive for status to gain a reciprocal imitation & authority, patterns of human beauty, sexual drives, parental instincts, empathy & the need for social support: reciprocal empathy...
The broadest inherited drive appears to be empathy / altruism. However, it’s not independently definable: empathy is mediated by recognition of self-image & values in others. This is actually a different type of conditioning: by similarity rather than by instrumental utility. Just like instrumental conditioning, it started as a vehicle for “selfish gene”: similarity is the only way animals can recognize genetic affinity, & then act to preserve & propagate common genes. This is particularly imprtant for social animals, such as us. Affinity also guides imitation, - we’re more likely to imitate those similar to us (other things being equal). That’s a “charisma” element of authority, - competence & power is not enough, to be effective a leader must seen as “one of us”...
And cognition is a higher form of evolution,- a concept conditioned by affinity as a progenitor of humanity & beyond...
Report abusive comment
B>The
mechanism of the drive to imitate & empathize is conditioning by
B> similarity. That’s a core of being social, & is inherited. The outcome
B> obviously isn’t, I said it many times.
Well, so I've written about empathize as conditioning by similarity, imitation and other social concepts like 8 years ago... It seems the entire Cognitive Algorithm is a sort of “conditioning by similarity” - matches to a template are reinforced.
B> it started as a vehicle for “selfish gene”: similarity is the only way animals can recognize genetic affinity, & then act to preserve & propagate common genes.
To me this sounds like finding purpose in something that is a by-effect. Many animals *cannot* see themselves, they see *other* animals (in the earliest age – their mother and siblings) and associate/condition their own feelings and sensations with the ”motion pictures” and smells of the other animals, they are fooled by each-other. Also there are cases of different kinds of animals trying to mate, even cats and dogs, or mammals and non-flying birds. :) In normal conditions they just don't meet and I guess there are simpler smell-driven means to recognize genetic affinity.
Human babies also can't see their own face for a long time, they see mother's and others' faces and probably find correlation between their own facial-muscles and visual feedback.
I agree imitation is fundamental, but “my” purpose is different. It's drive of evolution, higher level systems/virtual universes/”control units” are aiming at mimicking/repeating principles of operation of lower levels – because lower levels are example of working system for them and it's the lower level that *builds* the higher. Mind is a universal simulator of virtual universes, it's a “Multiversor”, it simulates what you feed it, but it can't do it exactly, can't cover all combinations; higher the level, lower the resolution, higher compression and match (generality). Also older versions of brains could have been just “Universors” - simpler simulators and recorders.
Mind imitates also, because record and replay (even with some mapping and adjustments) is still way simpler than inventing everything from scratch, and *repetition* is one of the basic means to detect and define patterns, “imitate/simulate” and “pattern” are correlated.
B>I though you realize that egotism is meaningless concept, the real question is
B>how broad & abstract the “ego” is. And conditioning by similarity increases
B> both.
I don't think “egotism” is a meaningless concept, it's “selfish gene” related, but it's a kind of by-effect. Mind cannot do anything but what its “program” drives, otherwise it's under other mind control, then it is another mind. Altruism are selfish drives which *match* others' selfish drives, so they are “cool”, because they match *your* drive (drive valuable to you), which reinforces selfishness.
Conditioning by similarity could be extremely general. For example when I discussed with my students about AGI and ethics, I asked them:
- What are you going to do if you're in the middle of a battle, and your fellow warriors are thinking machines (even they don't need to be androids), and you're attacked by humans who shoot at you and are trying to kill you? Will you empathize “humans”, because “they are like you”, “have soul” etc. or you will embrace your war-machines and robot friends who are covering you with their chests? Would they be savage heartless machines if they kill people who are trying to kill you, aren't people more heartless and savage?
It is similarity of drives/goals that matters above, and actually people do empathize *non-animate* objects as well (in biological and in dynamics/complexity sense), even in normal, non-war conditions - such as cars, computers or just dolls; people love them, call them names, hug them, kiss them, cry if they loose them. The objects just have to be associated with something related to satisfaction – you use this object often, it's an extension of your limbs, muscles, brains etc. so you associate it with “the image of yourself”.
B>The broadest inherited drive appears to be empathy / altruism.
Ironically I sort of agree, because I believe egoism is fundamental and altruism is worse than genuine egoism, a stronger form. :)
B>the real question is how broad & abstract the “ego” is
The broadness and abstractness of ego is subjective and questionable and it can be mind fooling. A serial killer may believe he was sent by God to punish sinners, his “self” covers The Omnipotent and he may believe he's doing good to humanity, because he will sent them to Heaven. Politicians, Green Peace, Church, Corporations - they all believe they work “for the good of humanity” or "society", which often actually means "to widen the range of their power and/or to replicate as much as possible".
B> similarity. That’s a core of being social, & is inherited. The outcome
B> obviously isn’t, I said it many times.
Well, so I've written about empathize as conditioning by similarity, imitation and other social concepts like 8 years ago... It seems the entire Cognitive Algorithm is a sort of “conditioning by similarity” - matches to a template are reinforced.
B> it started as a vehicle for “selfish gene”: similarity is the only way animals can recognize genetic affinity, & then act to preserve & propagate common genes.
To me this sounds like finding purpose in something that is a by-effect. Many animals *cannot* see themselves, they see *other* animals (in the earliest age – their mother and siblings) and associate/condition their own feelings and sensations with the ”motion pictures” and smells of the other animals, they are fooled by each-other. Also there are cases of different kinds of animals trying to mate, even cats and dogs, or mammals and non-flying birds. :) In normal conditions they just don't meet and I guess there are simpler smell-driven means to recognize genetic affinity.
Human babies also can't see their own face for a long time, they see mother's and others' faces and probably find correlation between their own facial-muscles and visual feedback.
I agree imitation is fundamental, but “my” purpose is different. It's drive of evolution, higher level systems/virtual universes/”control units” are aiming at mimicking/repeating principles of operation of lower levels – because lower levels are example of working system for them and it's the lower level that *builds* the higher. Mind is a universal simulator of virtual universes, it's a “Multiversor”, it simulates what you feed it, but it can't do it exactly, can't cover all combinations; higher the level, lower the resolution, higher compression and match (generality). Also older versions of brains could have been just “Universors” - simpler simulators and recorders.
Mind imitates also, because record and replay (even with some mapping and adjustments) is still way simpler than inventing everything from scratch, and *repetition* is one of the basic means to detect and define patterns, “imitate/simulate” and “pattern” are correlated.
B>I though you realize that egotism is meaningless concept, the real question is
B>how broad & abstract the “ego” is. And conditioning by similarity increases
B> both.
I don't think “egotism” is a meaningless concept, it's “selfish gene” related, but it's a kind of by-effect. Mind cannot do anything but what its “program” drives, otherwise it's under other mind control, then it is another mind. Altruism are selfish drives which *match* others' selfish drives, so they are “cool”, because they match *your* drive (drive valuable to you), which reinforces selfishness.
Conditioning by similarity could be extremely general. For example when I discussed with my students about AGI and ethics, I asked them:
- What are you going to do if you're in the middle of a battle, and your fellow warriors are thinking machines (even they don't need to be androids), and you're attacked by humans who shoot at you and are trying to kill you? Will you empathize “humans”, because “they are like you”, “have soul” etc. or you will embrace your war-machines and robot friends who are covering you with their chests? Would they be savage heartless machines if they kill people who are trying to kill you, aren't people more heartless and savage?
It is similarity of drives/goals that matters above, and actually people do empathize *non-animate* objects as well (in biological and in dynamics/complexity sense), even in normal, non-war conditions - such as cars, computers or just dolls; people love them, call them names, hug them, kiss them, cry if they loose them. The objects just have to be associated with something related to satisfaction – you use this object often, it's an extension of your limbs, muscles, brains etc. so you associate it with “the image of yourself”.
B>The broadest inherited drive appears to be empathy / altruism.
Ironically I sort of agree, because I believe egoism is fundamental and altruism is worse than genuine egoism, a stronger form. :)
B>the real question is how broad & abstract the “ego” is
The broadness and abstractness of ego is subjective and questionable and it can be mind fooling. A serial killer may believe he was sent by God to punish sinners, his “self” covers The Omnipotent and he may believe he's doing good to humanity, because he will sent them to Heaven. Politicians, Green Peace, Church, Corporations - they all believe they work “for the good of humanity” or "society", which often actually means "to widen the range of their power and/or to replicate as much as possible".
Report abusive comment
>
Well, so I've written about empathize as conditioning by similarity, imitation
and other social...
Yeah, & a warehouse of videotape has all that info too. It’s the signal-to-noise that matters.
>It seems the entire Cognitive Algorithm is a sort of “conditioning by similarity” - matches are reinforced.
Cognition is necessary for conditioning, but not vice-versa, cognitive template can be value-free.
>Many animals *cannot* see themselves, they see *other* animals...
OK “recognize genetic affinity” is contrived. I realized that proximity & similarity are both criteria for instrumental conditioning, - by external & internal association. Empathy is conditioned similarity on the highest (for animals) level of identity. Social animals may have specific circuits that mediate it, by directly connecting the highest levels of somatosensory cortex to those of sensory cortex: temporal/parietal. These circuits probably have oxytocin receptors, & may be disrupted in some psychopaths & autistics.
>I agree imitation is fundamental, but “my” purpose is different. It's drive of evolution...
“Mind”, “virtual”, “universe”, “control”, unit”.., - holistic terms, lazy thinking, no progress.
This is so wrong & vacuous, I am getting an allergy. The “drive” is preservation / propagation of whatever forms capable thereof. “Imitation as a purpose”: http://en.wikipedia.
>Mind imitates also, because record and replay (even with some mapping and adjustments) is still way simpler than inventing everything from scratch, and *repetition* is one of the basic means to detect and define patterns, “imitate/simulate” and “pattern” are correlated.
Just because “replay” is simple doesn’t mean it has any intrinsic value for the “replayer”, repetition can only come *after* recognition, simulation is for prediction, & experimenting by imitation is a ludicrously expensive way to do it. Will you ever grow out of your teenage “virtual universe”?
>I don't think “egotism” is a meaningless concept, it's “selfish gene” related, but it's a kind of by-effect. Mind cannot do anything but what its “program” drives, otherwise it's under other mind control, then it is another mind. Altruism are selfish drives which *match* others' selfish drives, so they are “cool”, because they match *your* drive (drive valuable to you), which reinforces selfishness. I believe egoism is fundamental and altruism is worse than genuine egoism, a stronger form. :)
Incoherent.
B>the real question is how broad & abstract the “ego” is
>The broadness and abstractness of ego is subjective and questionable and it can be mind fooling...
Right, don’t get too abstract if you aren’t smart enough, & don’t get too smart unless you have the guts to stand alone.
Yeah, & a warehouse of videotape has all that info too. It’s the signal-to-noise that matters.
>It seems the entire Cognitive Algorithm is a sort of “conditioning by similarity” - matches are reinforced.
Cognition is necessary for conditioning, but not vice-versa, cognitive template can be value-free.
>Many animals *cannot* see themselves, they see *other* animals...
OK “recognize genetic affinity” is contrived. I realized that proximity & similarity are both criteria for instrumental conditioning, - by external & internal association. Empathy is conditioned similarity on the highest (for animals) level of identity. Social animals may have specific circuits that mediate it, by directly connecting the highest levels of somatosensory cortex to those of sensory cortex: temporal/parietal. These circuits probably have oxytocin receptors, & may be disrupted in some psychopaths & autistics.
>I agree imitation is fundamental, but “my” purpose is different. It's drive of evolution...
“Mind”, “virtual”, “universe”, “control”, unit”.., - holistic terms, lazy thinking, no progress.
This is so wrong & vacuous, I am getting an allergy. The “drive” is preservation / propagation of whatever forms capable thereof. “Imitation as a purpose”: http://en.wikipedia.
>Mind imitates also, because record and replay (even with some mapping and adjustments) is still way simpler than inventing everything from scratch, and *repetition* is one of the basic means to detect and define patterns, “imitate/simulate” and “pattern” are correlated.
Just because “replay” is simple doesn’t mean it has any intrinsic value for the “replayer”, repetition can only come *after* recognition, simulation is for prediction, & experimenting by imitation is a ludicrously expensive way to do it. Will you ever grow out of your teenage “virtual universe”?
>I don't think “egotism” is a meaningless concept, it's “selfish gene” related, but it's a kind of by-effect. Mind cannot do anything but what its “program” drives, otherwise it's under other mind control, then it is another mind. Altruism are selfish drives which *match* others' selfish drives, so they are “cool”, because they match *your* drive (drive valuable to you), which reinforces selfishness. I believe egoism is fundamental and altruism is worse than genuine egoism, a stronger form. :)
Incoherent.
B>the real question is how broad & abstract the “ego” is
>The broadness and abstractness of ego is subjective and questionable and it can be mind fooling...
Right, don’t get too abstract if you aren’t smart enough, & don’t get too smart unless you have the guts to stand alone.
Report abusive comment
B>Social animals may have specific circuits that
mediate it, by directly connecting the highest levels of somatosensory cortex to
those of sensory cortex: temporal/parietal. These circuits probably have
oxytocin receptors, & may be disrupted in some psychopaths &
autistics.
OK.
B>You’ve read this knol zillion times & still don’t get the most basic point.
Well, you've read my real "knols" about this *NULL* times, but you're convinced that you get my point all correctly and I'm just an idiot who doesn't get even the basic premises of yours.
I guess the rest of the thousands of readers have understood everything right, so that's why they have nothing different to say.
By saying things that "doesn't" you imply I say "they do", while I'm not sure where exactly I've done.
B>Just because “replay” is simple doesn’t mean it has any intrinsic value for the “replayer”, repetition can only come *after* recognition
Yes. Everybody imitates/replay. The worst "replayers" replay literary input data, because they can't find patterns, patterns are too complex for their mind.
The best "replayers" replay the patterns they discover/recognize in data, the more advanced mind, more abstracted patterns it replays.
>simulation is for prediction
Of course it is, "virtual universes" function is to predict.
OK.
B>You’ve read this knol zillion times & still don’t get the most basic point.
Well, you've read my real "knols" about this *NULL* times, but you're convinced that you get my point all correctly and I'm just an idiot who doesn't get even the basic premises of yours.
I guess the rest of the thousands of readers have understood everything right, so that's why they have nothing different to say.
By saying things that "doesn't" you imply I say "they do", while I'm not sure where exactly I've done.
B>Just because “replay” is simple doesn’t mean it has any intrinsic value for the “replayer”, repetition can only come *after* recognition
Yes. Everybody imitates/replay. The worst "replayers" replay literary input data, because they can't find patterns, patterns are too complex for their mind.
The best "replayers" replay the patterns they discover/recognize in data, the more advanced mind, more abstracted patterns it replays.
>simulation is for prediction
Of course it is, "virtual universes" function is to predict.
Report abusive comment
>Well,
you've read my real "knols" about this *NULL* times, but you're convinced that
you get my point all correctly
We've been through this quite a few times, Todor. I don't think you really get your own point either, otherwise you would use terms that actually mean something.
> and I'm just an idiot who doesn't get even the basic premises of yours.
It's not enough to be not-idiot, & "basic" doesn't mean easy to understand.
>I guess the rest of the thousands of readers have understood everything right, so that's why they have nothing different to say.
I think ~half of the hitcount on this knol is you & me. The problem is not that you disagree. It is that you don’t understand enough to disagree, - you can’t translate your terms into mine.
>By saying things that "doesn't" you imply I say "they do", while I'm not sure where exactly I've done.
You said "replaying" is the purpose of evolution, in my terms that would mean a conserved core. I explained that, even if you really stretch "replaying", that would only be true for basic reproductive phase, not for conditioning, let alone cognition. But that seems to be too analytical for you. Your "terminology" seems designed to mean anything, to make sure you're never wrong ("virtual universe" is a perfect example). But that means you're never right either. You're commenting on this knol, & seem to like it, so you need to explain how your opinion is different from mine.
>Yes. Everybody imitates/replay. The worst "replayers" replay literary input data, because they can't find patterns, patterns are too complex for their mind.
The best "replayers" replay the patterns they discover/recognize in data, the more advanced mind, more abstracted patterns it replays.
You need to stop talking about “everybody” & “everything”, or “mind” & “universe” - that’s infantile. Imitating & replaying are “macro” terms that suggest & encourage lazy analysis. If I replace them with input or pattern projection, then that’s only a dispensable tool for cognitive prediction. The purpose (the drive, the core, the criterion) is future correspondence. And behaviour is driven by motivation, in which imitation is only a minor element. Thus translated, I don’t see how this adds anything to my interpretation of cognitive phase, aside from putting the carriage in front of the horse. But of course, you’re not even talking about cognitive phase, or anything definable. Reality is too much of a constraint for a free artist.
We've been through this quite a few times, Todor. I don't think you really get your own point either, otherwise you would use terms that actually mean something.
> and I'm just an idiot who doesn't get even the basic premises of yours.
It's not enough to be not-idiot, & "basic" doesn't mean easy to understand.
>I guess the rest of the thousands of readers have understood everything right, so that's why they have nothing different to say.
I think ~half of the hitcount on this knol is you & me. The problem is not that you disagree. It is that you don’t understand enough to disagree, - you can’t translate your terms into mine.
>By saying things that "doesn't" you imply I say "they do", while I'm not sure where exactly I've done.
You said "replaying" is the purpose of evolution, in my terms that would mean a conserved core. I explained that, even if you really stretch "replaying", that would only be true for basic reproductive phase, not for conditioning, let alone cognition. But that seems to be too analytical for you. Your "terminology" seems designed to mean anything, to make sure you're never wrong ("virtual universe" is a perfect example). But that means you're never right either. You're commenting on this knol, & seem to like it, so you need to explain how your opinion is different from mine.
>Yes. Everybody imitates/replay. The worst "replayers" replay literary input data, because they can't find patterns, patterns are too complex for their mind.
The best "replayers" replay the patterns they discover/recognize in data, the more advanced mind, more abstracted patterns it replays.
You need to stop talking about “everybody” & “everything”, or “mind” & “universe” - that’s infantile. Imitating & replaying are “macro” terms that suggest & encourage lazy analysis. If I replace them with input or pattern projection, then that’s only a dispensable tool for cognitive prediction. The purpose (the drive, the core, the criterion) is future correspondence. And behaviour is driven by motivation, in which imitation is only a minor element. Thus translated, I don’t see how this adds anything to my interpretation of cognitive phase, aside from putting the carriage in front of the horse. But of course, you’re not even talking about cognitive phase, or anything definable. Reality is too much of a constraint for a free artist.
Report abusive comment
Something
you miss about programmers is that they know that every concept must be defined
before used. I don't think my terms mean everything, discussion is of course
more precise in the works and terms are derived from each other and are more
advanced forms of the previous one.
Mind is built of virtual universes (simulators, cognitive hierarchies), they are built of control units (basic input-output-memory-
>you need to explain how your opinion is different from mine.
I explained why I disagree about altruism, which for you is fundamental, while I think it's a spin-off and mutual ego-fooling.
There is something related to broadness of self in my POV, though, it's that the more evolved control units have collected the more complexity/algorithm
and can predict in wider range and higher precision and this is sort of objective measure of the "broadness of their self".
>You said "replaying" is the purpose of evolution, in my terms that would mean a conserved core.
Imitation and replaying as drives of evolution are not in that sense like in reproduction, it doesn't imitate and replicate itself. The ultimate trend in all times is building of "control units" which do predict at maximum precision and range input data (model real universe, which for a higher level virtual universe is a virtual universe), using parts already accumulated in themselves.
Perfect prediction is finally perfect simulation of lowest level laws of physics of the lowest level input from "reality", this is trend towards "omnipotence".
You just mention "technological phenotype", but cognition is a tool for it. Obviously Universe evolves means for higher precision repeatable access and "voluntary" manipulation of ever lower constituents, which is not higher generality, but higher specialty.
(Voluntary ~ representation of the target effect in the memory of control unit matches the real effect in the output environment as close as possible, a kind of maximizing correspondence).
Even computer games, CGI, filmmaking display this trend - ever better and literal simulation of "reality", i.e. the "texture" of the patterns at the lowest level inputs mind perceives to be replicated and mastered completely.
Mind is built of virtual universes (simulators, cognitive hierarchies), they are built of control units (basic input-output-memory-
>you need to explain how your opinion is different from mine.
I explained why I disagree about altruism, which for you is fundamental, while I think it's a spin-off and mutual ego-fooling.
There is something related to broadness of self in my POV, though, it's that the more evolved control units have collected the more complexity/algorithm
and can predict in wider range and higher precision and this is sort of objective measure of the "broadness of their self".
>You said "replaying" is the purpose of evolution, in my terms that would mean a conserved core.
Imitation and replaying as drives of evolution are not in that sense like in reproduction, it doesn't imitate and replicate itself. The ultimate trend in all times is building of "control units" which do predict at maximum precision and range input data (model real universe, which for a higher level virtual universe is a virtual universe), using parts already accumulated in themselves.
Perfect prediction is finally perfect simulation of lowest level laws of physics of the lowest level input from "reality", this is trend towards "omnipotence".
You just mention "technological phenotype", but cognition is a tool for it. Obviously Universe evolves means for higher precision repeatable access and "voluntary" manipulation of ever lower constituents, which is not higher generality, but higher specialty.
(Voluntary ~ representation of the target effect in the memory of control unit matches the real effect in the output environment as close as possible, a kind of maximizing correspondence).
Even computer games, CGI, filmmaking display this trend - ever better and literal simulation of "reality", i.e. the "texture" of the patterns at the lowest level inputs mind perceives to be replicated and mastered completely.
Report abusive comment
You don't
understand the concept of conserved core. Cognition is not a means to create
technology, it's the other way around. Cognitive algorithm is conserved &
maximized, technological phenotype is changing at accelerating pace. Core is
about stability, not shear volume. We create more precise representations of
meaningless fluff because it doesn't cost anything anymore, not because they get
more important. Just because proportion of junk in DNA is 95% & rising
doesn't mean adding more junk is the purpose of evolution, - that junk is far
less stable than the functional 5%.
Meaningless fluff aside, all you're talking about is cognitive algorithm. There's a knol for that, but you don't comment there because your theaterminology would be way out place.
Meaningless fluff aside, all you're talking about is cognitive algorithm. There's a knol for that, but you don't comment there because your theaterminology would be way out place.
Report abusive comment
I see,
you say that actually I do recognize, project or search for trends in cognition,
incrementing precision is because of self-improvement and accumulation of
complexity. However I want to see "metaevolution" and see effects of development
and improvement of cognition as part of metaevolution, I abuse "computerese"
terms (and the knol), etc.
Also I see that your explanations are centered on the conserved core, if anything could drive or build something, it is it and it's for its "good", therefore it should be important for it. "I shouldn't think holistically", "what I'm talking about does not exist for real", etc.
Fine, I shouldn't abuse your knol, but I don't think my metaphysics is complete junk and that there is not a relationship between cognition and trends in Universe, "my theory" intended to find such.
Also I see that your explanations are centered on the conserved core, if anything could drive or build something, it is it and it's for its "good", therefore it should be important for it. "I shouldn't think holistically", "what I'm talking about does not exist for real", etc.
Fine, I shouldn't abuse your knol, but I don't think my metaphysics is complete junk and that there is not a relationship between cognition and trends in Universe, "my theory" intended to find such.
Report abusive comment
> Also
I see that your explanations are centered on the conserved core,
Without a conserved core, there is no identifiable system.
> Fine, I shouldn't abuse your knol,
It’s not an abuse, I just don’t have much patience for distractions. And frankly, this whole knol is mostly a distraction.
> but I don't think my metaphysics is complete junk
It’s not enough to get *something* right, a theory is worthless if it’s worse than competition. And the latter includes real sciences, which you’re not sufficiently familiar with.
> and that there is not a relationship between cognition and trends in Universe, "my theory" intended to find such.
That’s what I was doing in this knol, but the relationship I found seems to be too abstract for your taste. You want a relationship you can write a story about, & impress a girl with. Tough shit, the “universe” doesn’t care.
Without a conserved core, there is no identifiable system.
> Fine, I shouldn't abuse your knol,
It’s not an abuse, I just don’t have much patience for distractions. And frankly, this whole knol is mostly a distraction.
> but I don't think my metaphysics is complete junk
It’s not enough to get *something* right, a theory is worthless if it’s worse than competition. And the latter includes real sciences, which you’re not sufficiently familiar with.
> and that there is not a relationship between cognition and trends in Universe, "my theory" intended to find such.
That’s what I was doing in this knol, but the relationship I found seems to be too abstract for your taste. You want a relationship you can write a story about, & impress a girl with. Tough shit, the “universe” doesn’t care.
Report abusive comment
>Without a conserved core, there is no identifiable
system.
I also have cores and identifiable systems. But it's better to write about it on my own territory, if ever do.
>You want a relationship you can write a story about, & impress a girl with. Tough shit, the
>“universe” doesn’t care.
Your sense of humor is appreciated. :) First of all I've not really worked on this since the past (except to leave comments), second the girls who're really impressed of stuff like this have high probability of personality and emotional issues - according to my experience: 100% and this is not surprising, because normal girls are definitely not interested in megalomanic Universal writings of mad scientists.
I also have cores and identifiable systems. But it's better to write about it on my own territory, if ever do.
>You want a relationship you can write a story about, & impress a girl with. Tough shit, the
>“universe” doesn’t care.
Your sense of humor is appreciated. :) First of all I've not really worked on this since the past (except to leave comments), second the girls who're really impressed of stuff like this have high probability of personality and emotional issues - according to my experience: 100% and this is not surprising, because normal girls are definitely not interested in megalomanic Universal writings of mad scientists.
Report abusive comment
>I
also have cores and identifiable systems. But it's better to write about it on
my own territory, if ever do.
Right, & it must be *your own* theory, your self-esteem depends on it. Too bad you can't have your own universe.
>normal girls are definitely not interested in megalomanic Universal writings of mad scientists.
But that won't keep you from trying.
Right, & it must be *your own* theory, your self-esteem depends on it. Too bad you can't have your own universe.
>normal girls are definitely not interested in megalomanic Universal writings of mad scientists.
But that won't keep you from trying.
Report abusive comment
>Right, & it must be *your own* theory, your
self-esteem depends on it. Too bad you can't have your own universe.
You could just ignore me or delete comments, it's your territory, you should keep it safe. I've got lots of fields of interest to boost my self-esteem.
> *your own* theory, your self-esteem depends on it.
No, my own territory in order not to spam yours and to stop bothering you, and because I don't care that much for your (or anyone's) approval - I am convinced I'm right in my POV and it'd work if it's formalized; and I was interested in effects you're not.
I'm tired to try to fit things to yours, to explain (what's worth if you understand or agree?), and of all those fragmentary discussions. Finally I've always known such stuff won't worth until it's formalized or made "running". Your readers seem not to like your meta-evolution either, according to the average rating.
>But that won't keep you from trying.
I prefer to use my art.
You could just ignore me or delete comments, it's your territory, you should keep it safe. I've got lots of fields of interest to boost my self-esteem.
> *your own* theory, your self-esteem depends on it.
No, my own territory in order not to spam yours and to stop bothering you, and because I don't care that much for your (or anyone's) approval - I am convinced I'm right in my POV and it'd work if it's formalized; and I was interested in effects you're not.
I'm tired to try to fit things to yours, to explain (what's worth if you understand or agree?), and of all those fragmentary discussions. Finally I've always known such stuff won't worth until it's formalized or made "running". Your readers seem not to like your meta-evolution either, according to the average rating.
>But that won't keep you from trying.
I prefer to use my art.
Issues about biological evolution
Hi Boris,
I like your articles and your version of the metaevolution. Evolution is a great
concept, I'm exploiting it in my version of metaevolution and theory of
intelligence, too. Regarding the part after humans did exist, and intelligence
as internalized evolution/accumulati
However, regarding biological evolution, there are issues, what is your explanation of this/do you care?
(How about - biological evolution as a concept, created in order eventually to suggest and give rise to the invention of artificial intelligence... :) )
You might be better in genetics sciences than me, but the following issues easily arise, even if you're not a specialist in genomics/genetics and stuff:
- In order a positive mutation to reproduce, a male and a female should mutate synchronously in a compatible matter, and they have to mate. Now there are 6 billions humans, there were tenths of billions in the past centuries, and it doesn't seem that such mutations did occur. (Correct me, if wrong).
- If a mutation is small, it could give an insignificant advantage, and eventually disappear, because there are no compatible individuals for reproduction. As bigger is the change, as lower the probability of a male/female to mutate in parallel and to mate.
- Even a big mutation, say higher intelligence with 15-20 IQ points in todays measures, could not bring a significant advantage in the wild proto world. Einstein would hardly invent the General Relativity there.
- How natural language was born, including the vocal system - how and why it developed. How does the use/disuse of an organ is turning to DNA - there is no feed-back, except reproduction.
- Assume two synchronized mutants manage to mate and produce an offspring. However, who their offspring will mate afterwards? Therefore, evolution needs a row of parallel compatible mutations of big enough populations, and they should be in a close enough area in order to mate.
- There could be number of evolution lines with similar human-level intelligent beings of different biological kinds, but there is just one kind.
- How does the number of chromosomes change between the mother and a child, without resulting in a still-born or infertile child? What about the milk of the mother and his baby of a new kind?
They say "millions of years pass", to me this is a cheap excuse - regarding proto-human part, there was not so much time, and the population have been pretty small.
DNA seems to be so messy and "spaghetti-coded", in my opinion the probability of producing positive advantageous and accumulating mutations randomly, as errors, in parallel etc. is very questionable.
I know, you actually do mention something related to this, that the bacterias are changing DNA faster and humans seem genetically uniform.
My hypothesis, if biological evolution did really happen, is that DNA of the previous organisms was designed to follow a series of changes, maybe including chromosome number changes, until reaching to stable forms as we know them today. There might be "attractors", where DNA has been aiming to.
Regards
Tosh
However, regarding biological evolution, there are issues, what is your explanation of this/do you care?
(How about - biological evolution as a concept, created in order eventually to suggest and give rise to the invention of artificial intelligence... :) )
You might be better in genetics sciences than me, but the following issues easily arise, even if you're not a specialist in genomics/genetics and stuff:
- In order a positive mutation to reproduce, a male and a female should mutate synchronously in a compatible matter, and they have to mate. Now there are 6 billions humans, there were tenths of billions in the past centuries, and it doesn't seem that such mutations did occur. (Correct me, if wrong).
- If a mutation is small, it could give an insignificant advantage, and eventually disappear, because there are no compatible individuals for reproduction. As bigger is the change, as lower the probability of a male/female to mutate in parallel and to mate.
- Even a big mutation, say higher intelligence with 15-20 IQ points in todays measures, could not bring a significant advantage in the wild proto world. Einstein would hardly invent the General Relativity there.
- How natural language was born, including the vocal system - how and why it developed. How does the use/disuse of an organ is turning to DNA - there is no feed-back, except reproduction.
- Assume two synchronized mutants manage to mate and produce an offspring. However, who their offspring will mate afterwards? Therefore, evolution needs a row of parallel compatible mutations of big enough populations, and they should be in a close enough area in order to mate.
- There could be number of evolution lines with similar human-level intelligent beings of different biological kinds, but there is just one kind.
- How does the number of chromosomes change between the mother and a child, without resulting in a still-born or infertile child? What about the milk of the mother and his baby of a new kind?
They say "millions of years pass", to me this is a cheap excuse - regarding proto-human part, there was not so much time, and the population have been pretty small.
DNA seems to be so messy and "spaghetti-coded", in my opinion the probability of producing positive advantageous and accumulating mutations randomly, as errors, in parallel etc. is very questionable.
I know, you actually do mention something related to this, that the bacterias are changing DNA faster and humans seem genetically uniform.
My hypothesis, if biological evolution did really happen, is that DNA of the previous organisms was designed to follow a series of changes, maybe including chromosome number changes, until reaching to stable forms as we know them today. There might be "attractors", where DNA has been aiming to.
Regards
Tosh
Last edited Mar 8, 2010 5:05
PM
Report abusive comment
0
Hi
Todor!
>> In order a positive mutation to reproduce, a male and a female should mutate synchronously in a compatible matter, and they have to mate.
That's wrong, I don't know where you got it from, look up "sexual reproduction" in wikipedia.
>> Now there are 6 billions humans, there were tenths of billions in the past centuries, and it doesn't seem that such mutations did occur. (Correct me, if wrong).
There'd been plenty of genetic changes even very recently, check "Ten thousand year explosion".
>> Even a big mutation, say higher intelligence with 15-20 IQ points in todays measures, could not bring a significant advantage in the wild proto world. Einstein would hardly invent the General Relativity there.
The biggest application of human intelligence is in facilitating complex social cooperation.
>> How natural language was born, including the vocal system - how and why it developed. How does the use/disuse of an organ is turning to DNA - there is no feed-back, except reproduction.
It wasn't "born", it developed gradually. Use/disuse doesn't have to change DNA, epigenetics can be heritable too.
>> There could be number of evolution lines with similar human-level intelligent beings of different biological kinds, but there is just one kind.
There's always "one" at the top, even as the top keeps raising.
>> How does the number of chromosomes change between the mother and a child, without resulting in a still-born or infertile child? What about the milk of the mother and his baby of a new kind?
That's is inane, you should read before you write.
>> DNA seems to be so messy and "spaghetti-coded", in my opinion the probability of producing positive advantageous and accumulating mutations randomly, as errors, in parallel etc. is very questionable.
I think there have been minor genetic changes in humans that produced a major increase in intelligence, mostly through the growth & folding of neocortex. The genetic changes that produced civilization mostly relate to predisposition to learn by immitation. Our intelligence is social, the main inheritance mechanism here is culural conditioning.
>> My hypothesis, if biological evolution did really happen, is that DNA of the previous organisms was designed to follow a series of changes, maybe including chromosome number changes, until reaching to stable forms as we know them today. There might be "attractors", where DNA has been aiming to.
That would the dumbest possible way to implement a "design".
And the forms "now" are less stable than ever.
Boris
>> In order a positive mutation to reproduce, a male and a female should mutate synchronously in a compatible matter, and they have to mate.
That's wrong, I don't know where you got it from, look up "sexual reproduction" in wikipedia.
>> Now there are 6 billions humans, there were tenths of billions in the past centuries, and it doesn't seem that such mutations did occur. (Correct me, if wrong).
There'd been plenty of genetic changes even very recently, check "Ten thousand year explosion".
>> Even a big mutation, say higher intelligence with 15-20 IQ points in todays measures, could not bring a significant advantage in the wild proto world. Einstein would hardly invent the General Relativity there.
The biggest application of human intelligence is in facilitating complex social cooperation.
>> How natural language was born, including the vocal system - how and why it developed. How does the use/disuse of an organ is turning to DNA - there is no feed-back, except reproduction.
It wasn't "born", it developed gradually. Use/disuse doesn't have to change DNA, epigenetics can be heritable too.
>> There could be number of evolution lines with similar human-level intelligent beings of different biological kinds, but there is just one kind.
There's always "one" at the top, even as the top keeps raising.
>> How does the number of chromosomes change between the mother and a child, without resulting in a still-born or infertile child? What about the milk of the mother and his baby of a new kind?
That's is inane, you should read before you write.
>> DNA seems to be so messy and "spaghetti-coded", in my opinion the probability of producing positive advantageous and accumulating mutations randomly, as errors, in parallel etc. is very questionable.
I think there have been minor genetic changes in humans that produced a major increase in intelligence, mostly through the growth & folding of neocortex. The genetic changes that produced civilization mostly relate to predisposition to learn by immitation. Our intelligence is social, the main inheritance mechanism here is culural conditioning.
>> My hypothesis, if biological evolution did really happen, is that DNA of the previous organisms was designed to follow a series of changes, maybe including chromosome number changes, until reaching to stable forms as we know them today. There might be "attractors", where DNA has been aiming to.
That would the dumbest possible way to implement a "design".
And the forms "now" are less stable than ever.
Boris
Report abusive comment
Good, you
did care. :) The evolution after intelligent beings existed is
fine.
>I think there have been minor genetic changes in humans that produced a major increase in >intelligence, mostly through the growth & folding of neocortex
Nice.
>> How natural language was born, including the vocal system - how and why it developed. How does the
use/disuse of an organ is turning to DNA - there is no feed-back, except reproduction.
>It wasn't "born", it developed gradually. Use/disuse doesn't have to change DNA, epigenetics can be heritable too.
We weren't born as well, we were "developed gradually" in our mothers, but we say "born" anyway, implying a significant point in the "development" for the given context. Anything wasn't "invented" as well, it was developed gradually for anyone who knows the history of science/engineering/
>> My hypothesis, if biological evolution did really happen, is that DNA of the previous organisms was designed to follow a series of changes, maybe including chromosome number changes, until reaching to stable forms as we know them today. There might be "attractors", where DNA has been aiming to.
>That would the dumbest possible way to implement a "design".
Evolution or development is a form of unfolding and decompressing, the "design" is implied from the birth of the Universe, unless you do believe in true randomness.
If you quote parallel universes - if any possible thing happens (what a waste), but in a separate universe that does not affect the other ones, this is the same as if just one of the possibilities happen without parallel universes, it does not explain why anything did happen exactly this way in this particular universe.
We were "prenataly developed" as well, and it may seem like the evolution at a fast pace, however this development can be perfectly called also a decompression and unfolding, and the process passes through significant points, attractors.
Cognitive development seems also as "evolution", and it can also be called decompression - it is impossible for the system to encode itself in the biological part, so the "program" is compressed and can be decompressed by an appropriate set of stimuli. It develops, but the phases are predictable and predetermined, it's like an in-place sorting algorithm which has to pass all iterations.
And obviously there are DNA combinations and sets of combinations that that produce functionally similar systems, which are more stable than others; and I'm not talking about a change in a gene number N that alters a protein ABC to EFG.
T
>I think there have been minor genetic changes in humans that produced a major increase in >intelligence, mostly through the growth & folding of neocortex
Nice.
>> How natural language was born, including the vocal system - how and why it developed. How does the
use/disuse of an organ is turning to DNA - there is no feed-back, except reproduction.
>It wasn't "born", it developed gradually. Use/disuse doesn't have to change DNA, epigenetics can be heritable too.
We weren't born as well, we were "developed gradually" in our mothers, but we say "born" anyway, implying a significant point in the "development" for the given context. Anything wasn't "invented" as well, it was developed gradually for anyone who knows the history of science/engineering/
>> My hypothesis, if biological evolution did really happen, is that DNA of the previous organisms was designed to follow a series of changes, maybe including chromosome number changes, until reaching to stable forms as we know them today. There might be "attractors", where DNA has been aiming to.
>That would the dumbest possible way to implement a "design".
Evolution or development is a form of unfolding and decompressing, the "design" is implied from the birth of the Universe, unless you do believe in true randomness.
If you quote parallel universes - if any possible thing happens (what a waste), but in a separate universe that does not affect the other ones, this is the same as if just one of the possibilities happen without parallel universes, it does not explain why anything did happen exactly this way in this particular universe.
We were "prenataly developed" as well, and it may seem like the evolution at a fast pace, however this development can be perfectly called also a decompression and unfolding, and the process passes through significant points, attractors.
Cognitive development seems also as "evolution", and it can also be called decompression - it is impossible for the system to encode itself in the biological part, so the "program" is compressed and can be decompressed by an appropriate set of stimuli. It develops, but the phases are predictable and predetermined, it's like an in-place sorting algorithm which has to pass all iterations.
And obviously there are DNA combinations and sets of combinations that that produce functionally similar systems, which are more stable than others; and I'm not talking about a change in a gene number N that alters a protein ABC to EFG.
T
Report abusive comment
>>
Good, you did care. :) The evolution after intelligent beings existed is
fine.
I don't know if I care enough. Your terminological mix-ups suggest that you're after rhetorical games rather than understanding.
Just because ontogenetic development (look it up) partly follows genetic "design" doesn't mean that phylogenetic evolution does too. If phylogeny had a "design" to follow, it would be as fast as ontogeny (which is millions times faster). Yes, you can say that any initial condition is a "design" for whatever follows, but that's an abuse of language. Design is the compressed part of initial condition. Genetic design determines part of phenotypic complexity, though that part gets relatively smaller for higher organisms.
Yes, phylogeny has that part too, - the genome of whatever species you care to start from, but it determines a decreasingly significant percentage of complexity for descending species. In fact, phylogeny is mainly a compressive process, - it evolves increasingly compressed genotypes.
That's even more the case for cosmology,- universal physical constants (design) define an infinitesimal part of complexity in modern universe. The rest is determined by, depending on a theory, either quantum fluctuation or initial configuration of particles. Neither of these is compressed, so there's not much to "unfold".
So, what you say is not literally wrong, just meaningless. Biology & Cosmology are real sciences (as distinct from AI), you need to study them before you start having "theories". In AI, there's not much worth studying, but you still need to make sense as a full-time job, unless you want to be just another blind tinkerer.
>> Cognitive development seems also as "evolution", and it can also be called decompression - it is impossible for the system to encode itself in the biological part, so the "program" is compressed and can be decompressed by an appropriate set of stimuli. It develops, but the phases are predictable and predetermined, it's like an in-place sorting algorithm which has to pass all iterations.
You got it exactly backwards, cognitive development is *compression* of the stimuli, & it's only as predictable as its environment. Prediction is what it's for, cognition that's easy to predict is out of job. Prenatal development of the brain is, largely, ontological "decompression" of corresponding genes, but that's before cognition even starts.
I did call it "internalized evolution", but that's a loose analogy, cognition is as different from phylogeny as the later from the growth of entropy (I bet you didn't understand that part).
Do me a favor, think about it for few days before replying. It seems to me that you're more interested in wining an argument than in understanding the issues.
Boris.
I don't know if I care enough. Your terminological mix-ups suggest that you're after rhetorical games rather than understanding.
Just because ontogenetic development (look it up) partly follows genetic "design" doesn't mean that phylogenetic evolution does too. If phylogeny had a "design" to follow, it would be as fast as ontogeny (which is millions times faster). Yes, you can say that any initial condition is a "design" for whatever follows, but that's an abuse of language. Design is the compressed part of initial condition. Genetic design determines part of phenotypic complexity, though that part gets relatively smaller for higher organisms.
Yes, phylogeny has that part too, - the genome of whatever species you care to start from, but it determines a decreasingly significant percentage of complexity for descending species. In fact, phylogeny is mainly a compressive process, - it evolves increasingly compressed genotypes.
That's even more the case for cosmology,- universal physical constants (design) define an infinitesimal part of complexity in modern universe. The rest is determined by, depending on a theory, either quantum fluctuation or initial configuration of particles. Neither of these is compressed, so there's not much to "unfold".
So, what you say is not literally wrong, just meaningless. Biology & Cosmology are real sciences (as distinct from AI), you need to study them before you start having "theories". In AI, there's not much worth studying, but you still need to make sense as a full-time job, unless you want to be just another blind tinkerer.
>> Cognitive development seems also as "evolution", and it can also be called decompression - it is impossible for the system to encode itself in the biological part, so the "program" is compressed and can be decompressed by an appropriate set of stimuli. It develops, but the phases are predictable and predetermined, it's like an in-place sorting algorithm which has to pass all iterations.
You got it exactly backwards, cognitive development is *compression* of the stimuli, & it's only as predictable as its environment. Prediction is what it's for, cognition that's easy to predict is out of job. Prenatal development of the brain is, largely, ontological "decompression" of corresponding genes, but that's before cognition even starts.
I did call it "internalized evolution", but that's a loose analogy, cognition is as different from phylogeny as the later from the growth of entropy (I bet you didn't understand that part).
Do me a favor, think about it for few days before replying. It seems to me that you're more interested in wining an argument than in understanding the issues.
Boris.
Report abusive comment
>Do me
a favor, think about it for few days before replying. It seems to me that you're
more interested in wining an argument than in understanding the
issues.
Regarding rhetorics and human behavior - the same goes to you. Usually humans do a shallow search for the semantics of other people talking. You don't search for interpretations which are meaningful and don't assume that you don't understand the other, but you assume that the other is talking what you expect, but he's just wrong and dumb.
>If phylogeny had a "design" to follow, it would be as fast as ontogeny (which is millions times faster).
I don't think so. If you want to build today's 6 billions of humans (with their precise molecular structure, allowing their actual cognitive capabilities) and all their technology, and all the history that produced it, and all processes are interrelated and everything should happen despite the interrelation and because of them.
And you're starting out from a big melted stone, and some stars and planets around - it's perfectly understandable that the compression rate is huge and needs many many computations and transformations and search, even if it's a search, destined to find.
Why reproduction across space happens for evolved entities? Оne reason can be because you cannot encode 6 billion really different and as complex individuals and all around with that spaghetti code - not DNA, the melted stones, a star and some other stones around + those physical laws.
>You got it exactly backwards, cognitive development is *compression* of the stimuli, & it's only as
>predictable as its environment. Prediction is what it's for, cognition that's easy to predict is out of job.
Of course I'm not talking about this, unless you assume I'm an idiot - but I know you do, OK. :)
Regarding the compression, this is from my own article, see the last word, I was 17 then, "...При човека, повечето обекти (от всякакъв вид) не се запомнят "фотографски", а се "преразказват" в мозъка, записват се най-характерните особености на информационните обекти, входната информация се *компресира*."
Improving the precision and range of predictions and intentional causality (control) is a trend of the evolution in my theories, prediction and compression are linked, humans (high level) compress, whereas the lowest level of Universe does not compress and predict, it cannot envision what will happen, it does things, but Universe "predicts" with probability 1 and max possible resolution what will happen next - that's what "virtual universes" at different levels are aiming to achieve.
But I was talking about predictability of the stages of cognitive development of an individual.
>I did call it "internalized evolution", but that's a loose analogy, cognition is as different from phylogeny
>as the later from the growth of entropy (I bet you didn't understand that part).
:))
It is a decompression, if you look on the Universe as the memory of a computer, and the important thing is the end result data, the final system with its exact physical structure, not abstract/compressed.
Anything needs to be encoded with the "machine language" before it can run. Every abstract core have to be decompressed to physics before it is capable to work in this Universe, each lower preserved core is an interpreter down to the physical level. And this "decompression" goes from the implicit memory of Universe to the explicit memory of Universe (what actually does exist).
>In AI, there's not much worth studying, but you still need to make sense as a full-time job,
>unless you want to be just another blind tinkerer.
Check the feeds in my blog - I know you won't, but you're talking bullshit, since I will teach AGI in the University, and aiming at creation of a start-up, not that that latter would be easy. The original course includes an overview of the AI and its mistakes, brain architectures/biolog
T
Regarding rhetorics and human behavior - the same goes to you. Usually humans do a shallow search for the semantics of other people talking. You don't search for interpretations which are meaningful and don't assume that you don't understand the other, but you assume that the other is talking what you expect, but he's just wrong and dumb.
>If phylogeny had a "design" to follow, it would be as fast as ontogeny (which is millions times faster).
I don't think so. If you want to build today's 6 billions of humans (with their precise molecular structure, allowing their actual cognitive capabilities) and all their technology, and all the history that produced it, and all processes are interrelated and everything should happen despite the interrelation and because of them.
And you're starting out from a big melted stone, and some stars and planets around - it's perfectly understandable that the compression rate is huge and needs many many computations and transformations and search, even if it's a search, destined to find.
Why reproduction across space happens for evolved entities? Оne reason can be because you cannot encode 6 billion really different and as complex individuals and all around with that spaghetti code - not DNA, the melted stones, a star and some other stones around + those physical laws.
>You got it exactly backwards, cognitive development is *compression* of the stimuli, & it's only as
>predictable as its environment. Prediction is what it's for, cognition that's easy to predict is out of job.
Of course I'm not talking about this, unless you assume I'm an idiot - but I know you do, OK. :)
Regarding the compression, this is from my own article, see the last word, I was 17 then, "...При човека, повечето обекти (от всякакъв вид) не се запомнят "фотографски", а се "преразказват" в мозъка, записват се най-характерните особености на информационните обекти, входната информация се *компресира*."
Improving the precision and range of predictions and intentional causality (control) is a trend of the evolution in my theories, prediction and compression are linked, humans (high level) compress, whereas the lowest level of Universe does not compress and predict, it cannot envision what will happen, it does things, but Universe "predicts" with probability 1 and max possible resolution what will happen next - that's what "virtual universes" at different levels are aiming to achieve.
But I was talking about predictability of the stages of cognitive development of an individual.
>I did call it "internalized evolution", but that's a loose analogy, cognition is as different from phylogeny
>as the later from the growth of entropy (I bet you didn't understand that part).
:))
It is a decompression, if you look on the Universe as the memory of a computer, and the important thing is the end result data, the final system with its exact physical structure, not abstract/compressed.
Anything needs to be encoded with the "machine language" before it can run. Every abstract core have to be decompressed to physics before it is capable to work in this Universe, each lower preserved core is an interpreter down to the physical level. And this "decompression" goes from the implicit memory of Universe to the explicit memory of Universe (what actually does exist).
>In AI, there's not much worth studying, but you still need to make sense as a full-time job,
>unless you want to be just another blind tinkerer.
Check the feeds in my blog - I know you won't, but you're talking bullshit, since I will teach AGI in the University, and aiming at creation of a start-up, not that that latter would be easy. The original course includes an overview of the AI and its mistakes, brain architectures/biolog
T
Report abusive comment
Sorry, I
want to change this reply, it was way too harsh.
I appreciate that we agree on many issues, that's rare enough. But it's the disagreements that matter, & I disagree that your interpretation "compresses" or "predicts" anything. Anyway, metaevolution is just a hobby for me, & obviously for you. So, it's perfectly fine that you don't know much about biology, as long you focus on the stuff that matters.
I do get feeds from your blog (via bloglines), & teaching AGI course sure beats the show business. But I feel that there's too much of a show business left in your postings. And I see no indication that you're doing any theoretical work, which is the kind that matters in this field. I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
Boris.
I appreciate that we agree on many issues, that's rare enough. But it's the disagreements that matter, & I disagree that your interpretation "compresses" or "predicts" anything. Anyway, metaevolution is just a hobby for me, & obviously for you. So, it's perfectly fine that you don't know much about biology, as long you focus on the stuff that matters.
I do get feeds from your blog (via bloglines), & teaching AGI course sure beats the show business. But I feel that there's too much of a show business left in your postings. And I see no indication that you're doing any theoretical work, which is the kind that matters in this field. I would be delighted to be proven wrong.
Boris.
Report abusive comment
OK,
аccepted, I'm sorry too.
>But it's the disagreements that matter, & I disagree that your interpretation
> "compresses" or "predicts" anything.
OK
>Anyway,metaevolutio
>So, it's perfectly fine that you don't know much about biology,
>as long you focus on the stuff that matters.
I think an issue in my metaevolution is that while it is somehow about metaevolution, it includes a lot of metaphysics, philosophy and digital physics/systems theory/control theory/cybernetics. Mine was somehow an early attempt of a "digital metaphysical theory of everything", it searched for unified concepts which are applicable to many systems and display trends, e.g. why there are computers, why they work the way they work and how/why are they similar to entities such as societies/political states and the Universe, there are shared principles, and computers are closer to a formal demonstration of the principles.
Regarding biology, actually I do study some biological stuff, also biochemistry sometimes, but not too often and not too much; mostly neuroscience. My bad that I didn't check for a minute some of the genetic issues, but was just speculating aloud.
>I do get feeds from your blog (via bloglines), & teaching AGI course sure beats the show business.
>But I feel that there's too much of a show business left in your postings. And I see no indication
>that you're doing any theoretical work, which is the kind that matters in this field. I would be
>delighted to be proven wrong.
Thanks for watching! I do some theoretical work, but it is not that constructive yet, it's preparatory - studying, translating to-from English, making up the program for that course and preparing lecture slides. A warm up, yet, but it takes time and I have to do it.
You're right (unfortunately or not) that show business is still there, also the pure one - such as Video and Music, but recently the latter is hidden in its own dedicated blog...
Todor
>But it's the disagreements that matter, & I disagree that your interpretation
> "compresses" or "predicts" anything.
OK
>Anyway,metaevolutio
>So, it's perfectly fine that you don't know much about biology,
>as long you focus on the stuff that matters.
I think an issue in my metaevolution is that while it is somehow about metaevolution, it includes a lot of metaphysics, philosophy and digital physics/systems theory/control theory/cybernetics. Mine was somehow an early attempt of a "digital metaphysical theory of everything", it searched for unified concepts which are applicable to many systems and display trends, e.g. why there are computers, why they work the way they work and how/why are they similar to entities such as societies/political states and the Universe, there are shared principles, and computers are closer to a formal demonstration of the principles.
Regarding biology, actually I do study some biological stuff, also biochemistry sometimes, but not too often and not too much; mostly neuroscience. My bad that I didn't check for a minute some of the genetic issues, but was just speculating aloud.
>I do get feeds from your blog (via bloglines), & teaching AGI course sure beats the show business.
>But I feel that there's too much of a show business left in your postings. And I see no indication
>that you're doing any theoretical work, which is the kind that matters in this field. I would be
>delighted to be proven wrong.
Thanks for watching! I do some theoretical work, but it is not that constructive yet, it's preparatory - studying, translating to-from English, making up the program for that course and preparing lecture slides. A warm up, yet, but it takes time and I have to do it.
You're right (unfortunately or not) that show business is still there, also the pure one - such as Video and Music, but recently the latter is hidden in its own dedicated blog...
Todor
No comments:
Post a Comment