Reality vs Perception

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:

  1. Reality is entropy
  2. 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.

I was reading of William James in the last couple of days and I found myself strongly disagreeing with him.

Hopefully I will remember the specifics of the disagreement and be able to post it here.

:-k

You have given me a lot of food for thought, after breakfast I shall try to give much more time to Your post here. The three Jameses is an ironic twist but is unsure if it was totally unintended. Be back soon.

In other words and I’m always reducing these fragments, for simplificaton’s sake; the difference between precepts -percepts and perception on variable levels, presents with a continua, in order : to maintain reality without closing usual channels of perception. Just like with a camera the variation is dealt with
integral manipulation between aperture and shutter speed.

In a way that manipulation can be trans posed to a wider meaning of accommodation, which could answer Your query about what form of writing is preferred by You. I think the answer to that is simply in my courtyard , for my disability regarding particularization vis., lack of knowledge to use my phone. I will look into it , because I do like to use both formats, and I don’t want to add inconveniencing as another challenging deficit to overcome.

. Ill try to overcome that issue.

I have some interest in the philosophy of his contemporary Charles Sanders Peirce. You know, the guy who is considered to be the father of American pragmatism (but who did not enjoy the affiliation with James which is what motivated him to change the name of his philosophical position from “pragmatism” to “pragmaticism”.) I was doing some AI research when I stumbled upon him. One person led to another and then I eventually ran into this guy. He’s either the most important philosopher that has ever lived (Bertrand Russell said something to that effect) or he’s a fool. I can’t decide because he’s obscure. He was a scientist; he wrote a paper on how to be clear; he was obsessed with defining his terms; and yet, his writings were nevertheless obscure. Strange. His entire philosophy is based on the idea that there are three fundamental categories: firstness (potential), secondness (facts) and thirdness (law.) His understanding of the perceiver-perceived relationship follows this train of thought. He rejects the standard dyadic relation between signifier and signified in favor of a triadic relation that goes something like sign-object-interpretant. The guy is one of the founders of semiotics albeit modern semiotics leans heavily on the side of Ferdinand de Saussure’s semiology (Saussure was the other founder) which is dyadic.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semiotics

Happy deciphering:
paulburgess.org/triadic.html

He also thought that everything is a sign. This would be the position of pansemiosis.

Agreeable that would-could have some objectionable consequences. However that is, the further differentiation between signal/signaling could eliminate that or at least diminish its appearing consequences, leaving the object variable and diffusable.

Meno_

I have briefly gone over what both Magnus and yourself have written and I will study the material that Magnus has suggested.

I will be back.

:smiley:

I appreciate that.

Meno_

Here I continue where I left off 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. Also, I feel I must say that this interaction has been very valuable to me. A thought just occurred to me that the mere event of conscious apprehension must be fairly complex and carry with it, it’s own level of entropy - a probability that the apprehension will not take place.

Yes, this reminds me of the convergence that Eddington was talking about. An exception is made that we are dealing with probable types as opposed to absolute types - probable types of convergence leading to unity. The formal arranged centers of operation/s do adhere tacitly to embedded ones and the structural patterns are built up over consecutive generations - very slowly compared to surroundings. Generations need not be associated with human evolution.

Generations can each be attempts at understanding. Or in fact attempts at explanation. Each generation likely becoming clearer.

To illustrate: even if we are talking about two different things, there is a probability that {understanding/(an understanding)} will take place. Where there is less understanding there is more entropy of information - tacitly there are two probabilities >> the first is that there is information >> the second is that there is some understanding - bringing us back to what I said before about the somewhat correct and the somewhat incorrect - one might need to take a leap of faith here for the time being.

What is more general or hidden can point at truths that identifiable patterns expose.

If we are to watch the droplets fly away from a water sprinkler and observe their paths and impacts we are able to determine their source, yet their final destination is somewhat entropic in that they are now scattered but perhaps this does not capture properly what I am talking about because this principle is working in the reverse of information entropy - their final placement is actually ordered.

Hmm, I will put further thought into this.

I understand where you are coming from and a response from me would be dependent on further thought as previously mentioned.

High again, encode

I think that has been clarified to an extent sufficient to our purposes. (As far as. I can gather) at least as far as I can see.

Thank You. (for now)

I knew you were going to say that - I had already composed that post prior to the comments that Magnus and yourself last made and was not going to post it but I do read back over these threads when I come to composing/writing up material for my website so I thought I had better conclude with it.

Sorry about the ambiguity.

:smiley:

No worries worries, the ambiguity is mutual at least.

Meno_

I am able to further the point of re-defining intelligence in terms of affectance. We are talking about very small scales here so it is natural that our instruments are going to be not able to filter errors at this early stage in history. Therefore we are mostly unable to do anything with entropy trails and entropy signatures. That being said there are tricks that can be employed to overcome this minor inconvenience. In this post I will mostly talk about new research but I will say it again: I am able to further the point of re-defining intelligence in terms of affectance - at this point in time that could take a while however.

When talking about things at the quantum scale, we are talking about things beyond our scope of measurement, at least up until recently. As far as I know most of the mathematics is based on probability and therefore a level of uncertainty. Molecular intelligence can be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment but not for the reasons that you would want to hear. There is a reduction of entropy in the mentioned experiment. That being said, one should not infer that molecular intelligence can be inferred from the way photons behave in a two slit experiment.

Slightly off topic but related: it is early days but some new studies are suggesting that Correlation Actually Does Imply Causation:

I have other sources too but this was the quickest source to dig up. From the same article: “Additive noise model testing is based on the simple assumption that there is always some statistical noise clinging to the key variables in any experiment—areas where the data becomes fuzzy and unreliable due to measurement errors. Regardless of any link, each variable will have its own unique noise signature, with one caveat: If X causes Y, then the noise in X will be able to contaminate Y, but the noise in Y will not able to do the same to X. Because a cause can affect an effect, but an effect cannot affect a cause (read that last line a few times).”

Hopefully you are able to see where I am coming from here.

It does make one think.

:-k