If it falls below the threshold of perception, can it be an object? Note that perception doesn’t necessarily necessitate consciousness or awareness of perception.
What can’t be perceived, can’t be real, so it seems consistent.
Good stuff!
What is a brain?
In biology, the unitary approach makes it explicit why no organism can be thought of without an environment. An organism as a skin bag is no functioning system; it may be such only together with the relevant environmental parts. The same applies to neurophysiology or “cognitive” brain research: without the rest of the world the nervous system is not a system at all; neither is the agent of the behavior a part of the body, such as the brain.
I really like that. Your above interpretations are very likely more accurate than mine - I do not fully trust my assumptions ever. As for the above interpretations, regarding tom and the like as well as the sense data and Nietzsche I will get back to you on that - I am still reading up on nihilism as it pertains to Nietzsche as well as a little extra. Regarding what I have quoted in this post, well, I never considered the rest of the world.
Thanks. Cya soon.
Lately, after all, I tried to write an answer to a previous comment but found I could not because of the limited three subquotes.
So generally, Sartre is still holding the infinite reduction at bay, through reducing to the point where things makes sense via a bracketing. He is still holding to Descartes’ notion of thinking being (thinking of Being) , rather then the Nothingness of an infinite existentially reduced precept. As it turns out, such would prove contrary phenomenologically and here he could/would say Non cogiti non sum, or where I can not think, I do not exist,
One cannot think in nihilism, the child’s fear of the abyss, the dark is where he can not see himself" and thus know himself as an existent. Here he doesnt exist.
Nihilism is an all consuming idea of a death, which may turn out to be a perceptual illusion.
I agree with the above of the existence of the correlation as consisting of sufficient logical necessity, but at a certain level below the reduction of the phenomenon, it looses its structural basis.
I will try to make this comment more sufficiently substantial, as I review the comments above in which the relevance were confirmed by both of you.
Russell’s precept or sense data held the way Descartes’ and did. Nietzsche showed that prophetically, ironically after the fact.
I have also been thinking about tacit knowledge. I agree with Polanyi that all knowledge is rooted in tacit knowledge. I can make an extension here and say that memories are never stored exactly as the experience that prompts them. No memories are fully codified.
There is also a mathematical principle covering information entropy that tells me that the human brain expresses more entropy when storing and recalling memories.
I have an AI model that is flexible enough to not be overcome by the entropy.
I was going to add something else but it seems to have slipped my mind.
It is paradoxical any way, as is the comments above on Descartes, Nietzsche and Sartre. Ironically its a foreward progressing entropic process.
You are the very embodiment of that principle, I must say.
If it slipped Your mind, recovery may come if You are willing to wait and discern later what it may have been
And lastly encode, what is the general makeup of an AI which can overcome entropy? Would it be reverse engineered somehow to reduce the effects of a modeling?
Of You are able to discuss this in philosophically relevant terms or may lay a foundation for further elaboration. and prove useful, as far as it concerns the eventual relative outcome of this forum’s topic.
Or possibly this a kind of exploratory investigation into the
Specificity of a claim against general propositions? I hope so, and in embodied claims, no specificity is required , at least not in this format.
Much appreciated.
Is not intelligence a reduction of entropy?
There are two ways of looking at that since intelligence is an organization, but expression of information tends towards randomness.
0000000 carries no information and is most ordered.
01010101 or repeat (01) carries more information and is somewhat ordered.
0110100 carries yet more information and is most random (least ordered) of the bunch.
So is intelligence entropic or is it not? I’m confused lol
Nihilism probably means whatever people want it to mean. I haven’t read Nietzsche either, except wikipedia, so I can’t speak for him, but for me it means purposelessness, which is the purpose. Not death and abyss and blackness. Just nonteleological serendipity which is better represented by Wu Wei en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wu_wei Mindless and purposeless = fun. Fun is a simple 3-letter word juxtaposed against purpose.
For instance I am not talking about this for any reason, but simply because it’s fun and enjoyable. There is no purpose and that is the purpose. That’s about as nihilistic as one can get, I would think. But to insist upon some blackness or emptiness comes because of some purpose of the one insisting and that’s not nihilism.
There can only be two motivations: Purpose and nonpurpose. Either you have an agenda, a goal, or you’re doing whatever, mindlessly.
So what Nietzsche said is a trivia for those interested in reading what he said. Mark Twain said to be careful of reading health books or one may die of a misprint, so I don’t want to be too wrapped up in other people’s stuff.
Geese flying over a lake do not intend to cast their reflections and the lake has no mind to retain their image. Birds do not sing for the advancement of music. There is no purpose to anything and that is the best purpose to have 
Without elaborating, I would answer, yes. Intelligence is a reduction of entropy.
A perfect example.
I would say that intelligence is somewhat entropic - that intelligence is only a reduction of entropy.
I reserve the right to change my mind, lol.
lol that’s a nice touch 
If gravity is anetropic, AI would be the blackhole of intelligence… an explosion in reverse.
Yes, I am starting to wonder about this. I have read a Wikipedia article and another article provided by some kind soul. I like what you wrote about Wu Wei, I think I might read up a little on that and see what I can come up with. I guess I might have to read Nietzsche to see what all the fuss is about.
Quite, …what can I say.
Honestly, I think it’s the name: Nietzsche. It’s like Porsche.
You ever wonder if the success of companies hinges upon a name? Apple, Google, Coke, Nike. Almost seems like picking the right name is half the battle; the rest is just details. Are you going to shop on ebid or ebay? Is “ay” preferable to “id”?
bid, did, grid, hid, kid, lid, mid, quid, rid, schmid, scrid, sid, skid, slid, smid, squid
'kay, bay, bray, chez, clay, day, flay, fray, gay, gray, hay, hey, jay, kay, lay, may, nay, pay, play, pray, prey, ray, say, slay, sleigh, stay, stray, sway, they, tray, way, weigh, whey, yay
Ebay wins. It’s more identifiable and sounds friendlier.
Nietzsche is a cool name. It’s hard to pronounce, hard to spell, German engineering is fashionable and is equated with intelligence.
Even if Nietzsche is read, or contraryly, not, since he was more poet and mystic than overt metaphysician, . the critique against not reading him, or not reading him as he should be read, does not hold water.hmHis is a sort of anti Christ-anti parable type intrusion into the mortal psyche.
I will take the following as a requirement of the rest of this post:
What do you class as philosophically relevant terms? What terms work for me may not work for you. I could lay the ground for further elaboration, I believe that is easy enough. As far as what use it would serve, well, I guess that is the more difficult thing to ascertain up front. The relative outcome of this forums topic still alludes me.
First of all it is not so much about overcoming entropy as it is about working inside an already relatively entropic state. With that being said, it is easy enough to illustrate the principle behind working inside an entropic state but that would depend on whether you are willing to accept a particular model of AI and I am not an expert on all of them - in fact I try to base my models on what I perceive to be human intelligence which I may have wrong.
No, it should not be reverse engineered because overcoming entropy is technically quite easy in concept and because computer hardware and software works extremely well with concept building it would be too easy to get a computer to overcome entropy - providing a computer is the medium that is used to create an AI.
This to me depends on how one is situated with regard to general propositions. You would have to further what you mean.
I’ve been writing about this more today in another venue, and will try to answer this last one , because You have given me more than I can answer at this late hour. So to further this, St. James intimated as such. as to the reasons why the relationship between Reality and Perception is better untangled , at least from an analytical mind’s point of view , from general to specific propositions.
I think Reality can be taken as a given, and work itself down to perceptions, in spite of , and we talked of this previously here, mistaken notions between precepts and sense data.
Given what we know about the logical basis of modeling in general, it can be safely said that any model needs reconstruction based vestiges , which had at one point cohesive qualities to form such a model.
Such a reconstruction must follow the probable type of the deconstructed ‘original’ or becomes virtually bound more to probable formal arranged centers of operation, which adhere tacitly(Polanyi) to embedded ones,with it’s structural patterns of mathematical notation.
This is merely a derivation more from more general or hidden particulars for processing more identifiable
patterns.
I must excuse myself for this intuitive approach relqted to philosophical underpinnings , whereas it may have relevance as well to mathematical abstraction.
I agree with St.James that reality consists of precepts of posited bits but such position is not some juxtaposition of formal and substantial elements, but of interaction between them , not as some form of transcendent. Although a precept appears as priority , it is only by conventional meaning does it appears as such.
Reality vs perception is not a priorotozation of the shift from a deductive logical sequencing of meaning bits to an inductive ones, since modeling reconstructs reality through changeless bits of information which are brought together by the most probable patterns toward saturation of redundant bits.
This process goes on until a successfully modeled reconstruction is achieved, where its sequentially repeated through varying integrative cycles.
This is based on the most general philosophic notions , and therefore hypothetical.
The trend in computation is less and less reliance for proofs and more and more reliance on the presumptive integrity of the hypothetical acceptance reality as a given.
There is a time approaching when only very complex computers can prove the various levels of lesser computer generated sub-programs. This time ideal is fast approaching. , The objective integrity will need to be confirmed by the operational coherence of all subsequent systems. But here I feel I am not saying anything new.
I will further add that:
- Reality is entropy
- Perception is not entropy
The above holds if perception is what we broadly consider as healthy perception.
I should mention that I am not speaking in absolute terms here.
Well put, and You could not conceivably model as such, either., except through a return to objective and cohesive formal arrangements.
The idea of a difference between a healthy or unhealthy perception also breaks down below and above certain parameters, and the question can only be resolved by integrative systems cohesive with the modeling system on the whole but not in the absolute.
But such precision might be more on the level of application rather than design.
Meno_
When approaching your post, it is hard for me to know whether I should use my normal technique of breaking it down section by section or try to get at the meat of the situation by finding what I deem to be the most appropriate information and expand from there. So hopefully I am covering enough of what you are writing.
OK, I will do my best but I can not make any promises as I sometimes get lost in thought in my current condition.
When you say St. James it reminds me of James S Saint for some reason.
I mostly agree and think that if intelligence is a reduction of information entropy then conscious apprehension and subconscious processing is the means of putting these fragments of information back together. The mind(conscious and subconscious) then serves the purpose of seeking out, defragmenting and understanding the surrounding reality; but with what purpose? It would seem that perception is polar opposite to reality in many regards following this line of thought, and therefore perception has the purpose of simply avoiding the entropy that reality creates.
I am perhaps looking at this from a slightly different angle - I have wondered whether multiple angles is something that the perception works with to solve its reality puzzles and that all angles only have one of two states and they are: somewhat correct and somewhat incorrect, further complicating the puzzle. The perception is taking many snapshots of reality in the attempt to apprehend realistic states that can be sewn together into a perceptive moving picture of sorts at least indicating that the perception is also in motion alongside reality << Just a side thought but I think somewhat valid.