Bounded Rationality

Hey, cool! As always: sounds interesting and would love to hear more.

“Ways rationality can blend to irrationality - They are like spectrum’s but in code.”

Under most regular circumstances I do not believe one switches from rationality to irrationality in an instant. Like over the day how you are talking and thinking about many things as well as performing many actions then eventually you get tired. I imagine the rationality spectrum to change throughout the waking hours depending on many circumstances; during the sleeping hours our rationality would receive upgrades so to speak.

Yes randomness is an element. I will elaborate: Not by virtue of a random number generator as such but more subtle means - if you were to take each higher functionality as its own separate entity working as a type of swarm[planning, priority, reflection, flexibility, goals] with emotion and inhibition being drivers - there would be different amounts of the swarm elements in working memory and levels of emotion and inhibition driving these. It is these different amounts and levels that provide for the randomness and the pattern is ever changing. Sometimes you would get clusters of similar patterns showing up and other times there would even be paradoxical effects. The example given is not meant to model any being but is in itself a type of being - this stuff is like leggo and for that reason one has to bring ethics into the equation all the time before piecing configurations together.

Borrowing from Star Trek - you would first program into it what its prime directive is before any goals take place - this way if any of its goals conflict with this directive it would not attempt to complete the goal. Keeping track of which approaches have the best track record would come first after prime directive but before goals - if there are no approaches available then a prime effort is made - prime effort being an inception effort. All of the logic must remain “fuzzy” all of the time. Algorithms change over time - here we only use solid functions to spur on higher functions - the patterns are data - we have invented a data type that builds algorithms - data becomes the new programming language. What I am saying is more or less what you are saying but in some aspects reconfigured and reverse engineered.

Agreed - some people are very discerning when it comes to sophistry - I don’t always use conscious logic to become aware of BS which tells me that there is higher functioning going on unnoticed in all of us - a safeguard if you will.

It is this sort of thing that should way in on an ethics discussion. For instance I disagree with modelling bots on the brain - not only is it tremendously wasteful for processing and electricity but it is truly the long way around and at best you would for ever be emulating the brain and locking a mind to it - a mind stuck in a brain stuck in a machine - I only model the mind and that goes onto the machine(this brings up more ethics to be considered). I wont comment specifically any further on your discourse because I think it is pretty solid. Lastly everything we do comes with some sort of risk but it is responsibility that I am focusing on most of all - that is why I am here. I consider philosophy the perfect tool for working out the right from the wrong. In fact I am building a new philosophy around the bot mechanism - philosophy of the bot if you will; this philosophy necessarily includes ethics.

Why? Couldn’t both achieve the same result if used for good intentions?

Shepherdess

There is at least one charlatan getting around on this forum at the moment with no concept of proof - James S Saint is not one of them.

James at the very least offers his own proofs to back up what he says.

Personally I agree with what James says in the above quote.

I am contemplating taking a very long break from posting anything.

These are my parting thoughts . . .

Bounded Rationality

Well, I thank you for that, but…

:confused:

James

With the exception of what we are doing.

Alright… curious since the topic at hand is bound infinities … I think a short investment of your direct time should reveal very quickly that I can’t prove what I’m talking about. I make very short posts, and a two sentence counter example should suffice.

It could of course be my mistake, since I’ve never seen James make any ethical proof before, so, I deduced it was the current math thread (because of the computer talk in this thread (as an aside, you don’t want AI)) where I said his proof was nonsense without understanding why certain numbers have certain regressive features.

That would make me the most obvious implied chalatan as I disagreed with the oppositional proofs for both equal and not equal.

Am I wrong?

Chain-posting yeah haven’t done that in a while.

Solving problems on this plane, is how I rest my mind when I get fatigue from where my mind is doing the most work, I have one foot here and the rest of me… well… other … I know I can solve these problems, but I also know it doesn’t really matter much, I do it to rest… like doing a sudoku or something. The reason I saw fit to add this post is because you are pondering silence. As you ponder this, it might be helpful to know that you can do lots of work and still be resting. It’s something to consider anyhow.

Ecmandu

Please allow me to start by saying that you are very observant. I am not sure I can offer a satisfactory answer but I will do the best I can.

8-[

I have major problems with both infinity and zero. In one way I see them as two sides to the one coin. I am not certain I can prove my own perception on the matter - just that I see problems with how people go about trying to prove infinitesimals. To me some things are not able to be proven. By trying to limit an infinite concept to me seems futile - but I could be wrong.

I am not an expert on James’ philosophy yet but I would like to be - among my own threads are references to the infinity problem - I have been reading the mathematics thread that you refer to for the last month - I deal mainly with floating point numbers so infinity becomes a slightly different problem.

You are correct - I do not want AI - especially bad AI. It seems a lot of people in the world are pushing for AI and so as a software engineer I felt the need to understand what was going on - this helps me to analyze the potential dangers that might arise. I am happy to say that most people who develop this technology really have no idea what they are doing - AI is also a broad category. I have seen two projects that are dangerously close to seeing the light of day that model the memory and thinking process. My own work is involved in AGI(modelling the human intellect) and Machine Intelligence(modelling biological neural networks) - I do this to have a benchmark to compare other such projects with. I don’t make any money out of my AGI Research - good people need to be aware of the real dangers involved and not the dangers that Hollywood presents. At present the main danger I see is more a social issue in that we have seen AI change people - they have become antisocial and less able to think for themselves - we are also seeing corporations obtaining the potential to control us.

My main fields are actually in compilers, interpreters and operating systems. This entails a bit of diversity: Formal Language Theory, Automata Theory and Abstraction to name but a few things involved. These fields are well placed starting points to understanding more diverse things such as AI.

To me a charlatan knows they are presenting false knowledge and do it anyway - I do not think you are a charlatan - I am not even certain that my own work is all that precise - I can only hope that what I present is for the greater good. I do not use temptation and mystery as a tactic to persuade people - I prefer to just say what is on my mind and if I end up with a bruised ego then so be it.

Chain-posting - I like that - I try my best to consider what people say - I am prone to misinterpreting what people say because I am not perfect.

I am pondering silence because my identity as a human being has been questioned by what I believe to be a charlatan.

I have not been the most pleasant character on this forum - so I probably deserve it.

Its all good.

:neutral_face:

I’ll simply say one thing about infinitesimals and zero.

They require a different operator; a separate category.

I’ll explain.

Zero, is, no chair there that you can sit upon, the other category is the imagination (which you can’t possibly sit upon) of a chair. You can’t abstract the zero of something not imaginary unless it is a non-zero imagination.

Infinitesimals require something I call dimensional flooding - what this means is that a string never ends, before you reach a different string on that tail.
To rationalize that tail, you need a different operator.

Memory is actually caused by the imaginary form of time travel. These states are usually mixed with other current states when retrieved, although, it is entirely possible to access a perfect memory overlap.

The reason it’s called a memory overlap, is that more than one being shares the same exact memory, thus, overlap between them.

Ecmandu

That is some really cool thinking there . . .

I see what you are saying for the most part. I will say however that 10’s, 100’s, 1000’s … have no problem occupying the chairs - in the case of 10’s there are actually ten ones occupying the same chair - however it never becomes the chair without the leading one - the problem gets worse from there - obviously this is just a tricky way of saying something.

What concerns me is what we say otherwise just becomes another tricky way of saying something. Matter itself I think would be required to be infinitesimal to validate an otherwise conceptual problem - so conceptually we bring limits into the equation - as far as I can discern the problem is not solved in the physical realm.

The way you describe memory is similar to the way I describe it - the difference is I describe it more subjectively. I like the way you have presented it here - I agree with the possibility of the perfect memory overlap - like a causal loop - leading to a paradox - so a bootstrap paradox. Thank you for taking the time to post on the things you have posted on - they stir up different parts of my mind.

:sunglasses:

There are actually 4 different techniques for grabbing internal states of others for recall. Actually, there is no issue of non-origin for a memory overlap in the strictest sense… as long as you existed before it happened, you have a tether, otherwise, you would cease to exist, and you’d have never been born and nobody would know it… (contradiction I.e impossible) the tether will snap you back, at which point, the overlap will diverge as you get your old memories back, and how many you overlapped.

There are about 30 techniques for external life viewings.

I’ll tell you the 4 techniques for internal viewings of others lives.

The first is possession - the crudest one actually
The second is memory overlap - where the time moves at their speed
The third is a hyper-sensory viewing, this is like how someone can flip to two open pages of a book and instantly read all of it in order.
The 4th way is consciously done but not held consciously. you can effectively absorb beings spirits and file them in your subconscious - kinda like a library that you let autonomic systems sort.

I should explain a bit about reality manipulation because I brought up possessions… some beings can only harm or heal through possessions. Higher beings don’t need to be so invasive, they can will it by mind alone.

I do like talking about this stuff, but practically speaking, I’m working out systems of access, which makes discussing it in the here and now moot.

There are lots of rules and regulations about access, these would take a while to explain what they are and why the regulations exist the way they do. Suffice it to say, you can’t hide in the spirit realm.

I have to say this because it’s super-ironic.

The Jewish people have a messianic prophesy that when the whole world is either holy or in sin, the messiah will come. What’s ironic about this is that the messiah is supposed to restore the temple…

This is what’s ironic!!

(Sorry I veer sometimes). Temples, shrines, mosques, churches, ashrams, synagogues, marriage, rites of passage (baptisms etc…), markings of rank, like a salute or bow or something like flashing a peace sign, categories of encoding universals to free symbols (it’s oppressive)… this basic list goes on and on… are all very serious sin!!

This world has always been in deep sin.

And if there is to be anything resembling an actual messiah… it is a vast cosmic group effort!!

Ecmandu

I like the idea of a group effort.

When one member of the said group makes no effort to express themselves(offer something of substance) there is a possible corruption in the group. When a person is too embarrassed to offer their view they are corrupt. When others take the time to work on that person and that person is able to start feeling comfortable again the corrupted individual is able to be a part of the group again - the group can be self healing.

What about when one member taints the group with lies, deception, delusions of grandeur et cetera? I say the same self healing process as previously mentioned is needed.

The truth is not yet perfect but we have many things that point at it - I am not sure how healthy it is for the said group to divert from the obvious approximation of truth by following the individual who is making claims that are against the groups approximation.

Truth and goodness are the maze of non hypocrisy.
The challenging part is that hypocrisy gives short term gains - people effectively become non cognitive about words that they on some level understand will make those short term gains challenging.

Perfection is a margin of error most of the time.

I always say that when I order coffee, I always ask for “spill room” or “walking room” (usually about 3/4ths full) — never have I had the same exact pour, but all of them are perfect… which is to say, perfection has infinite diversity!!

Yes, this is true. James does at least offer his own proofs to back up what he says.

If philosophy is first and foremost about wisdom ~ a love of wisdom ~ why is it that so many philosophers do not go the way of wisdom?
Why do they not practice what they think and believe?
Why is it more about the intellect and the academics rather than the living what one has learned?
I’m not here saying that no philosopher does that but it appears to me to be more about the intellect and less about the “living wisdom” of it all.
Isn’t it a sign of intelligence to gather information and utilize it rather than simply storing it somewhere in time?

That cannot actually be set in stone. It’s one’s own point of view, one’s own experience but it can’t be absolute, now can it?

At the very least, yes, they swim in the same waters ~ for me at least. Actually, one can have ~ let’s qualify that ~ one can have the capacity for right reason or reasoning and wisdom and yet not adhere or tend toward them or put into practice what they have learned.
Am I wrong, insofar as you are concerned?

encode_decode

I sometimes feel that I own the stars. Is there a way to experience that one own’s something yet at the same time does not feel possessive of it? Perhaps it is the stars which own and possess me. We have an Ich & Du relationship.

Can someone not feel that way about certain words or all words? Valuing them beyond compare but particularly certain words which speak to them, as in holding a relationship with them?

Could a bot’s language flow like the river?
Could a bot’s language give one a sense of harmony and balance? Well maybe.

How fascinating it might be to converse with a bot.