Infinte Regress Timeline...

[Juma]

An equation is a relation between a number of variables, constants and functions.

Physically it is interactions between neural processes.

But you said that the equations are, "only in your mind", and before that you said that the "nervoussystem is out there". That would make the equations out there too.

The "platform" for the inervous interaction is out there. But the interaction uses protocols that is only valid (known) within the system.

When we have learnt to understand/interact/use these protocols then we have a bridge to the inside of the mind.

 

[ryan]

But you said that the equations are, "only in your mind", and before that you said that the "nervoussystem is out there". That would make the equations out there too.

The "platform" for the inervous interaction is out there. But the interaction uses protocols that is only valid (known) within the system.

When we have learnt to understand/interact/use these protocols then we have a bridge to the inside of the mind.

Let's say we knew what is needed to model the function of, say, 2 + 3 = 5 and the system needed to validate the equation using larger brain materials, and we isolate the entire system and suspended it in a water tank. What if we could reconstruct the "interactions between neural processes" and whatever else is needed for the equation 2 + 3 = 5. Would this "artificial organ or tissue" be the equation?

 

[Juma]

The "platform" for the inervous interaction is out there. But the interaction uses protocols that is only valid (known) within the system.

When we have learnt to understand/interact/use these protocols then we have a bridge to the inside of the mind.

Let's say we knew what is needed to model the function of, say, 2 + 3 = 5 and the system needed to validate the equation using larger brain materials, and we isolate the entire system and suspended it in a water tank. What if we could reconstruct the "interactions between neural processes" and whatever else is needed for the equation 2 + 3 = 5. Would this "artificial organ or tissue" be the equation?

Lots of "whats if"s and "whatever else is needed". I have no idea what you are asking for.

That said: I have never said that slme organ or tissue is an equation (or any other thing going on in our mind). Mind stuff are dynamical effects, interactions. Not tje organs themselve. As in the relation between rjnning programs and the platform they run on.

 

[ryan]

Let's say we knew what is needed to model the function of, say, 2 + 3 = 5 and the system needed to validate the equation using larger brain materials, and we isolate the entire system and suspended it in a water tank. What if we could reconstruct the "interactions between neural processes" and whatever else is needed for the equation 2 + 3 = 5. Would this "artificial organ or tissue" be the equation?

Lots of "whats if"s and "whatever else is needed". I have no idea what you are asking for.

It's theoretical. We can see what happens in a thought experiment if what you say makes sense. See below.

That said: I have never said that slme organ or tissue is an equation (or any other thing going on in our mind). Mind stuff are dynamical effects, interactions. Not tje organs themselve. As in the relation between rjnning programs and the platform they run on.

I know that the artificial organ or tissue would actually have to be functioning in the tank. We would simulate the required functions immediately external to it so that it works just like the process in the brain.

 

[Juma]

Lots of "whats if"s and "whatever else is needed". I have no idea what you are asking for.

It's theoretical. We can see what happens in a thought experiment if what you say makes sense. See below.

That said: I have never said that slme organ or tissue is an equation (or any other thing going on in our mind). Mind stuff are dynamical effects, interactions. Not tje organs themselve. As in the relation between rjnning programs and the platform they run on.

I know that the artificial organ or tissue would actually have to be functioning in the tank. We would simulate the required functions immediately external to it so that it works just like the process in the brain.

If it works just like a brain, then it is a brain.

 

[ryan]

It's theoretical. We can see what happens in a thought experiment if what you say makes sense. See below.

That said: I have never said that slme organ or tissue is an equation (or any other thing going on in our mind). Mind stuff are dynamical effects, interactions. Not tje organs themselve. As in the relation between rjnning programs and the platform they run on.

I know that the artificial organ or tissue would actually have to be functioning in the tank. We would simulate the required functions immediately external to it so that it works just like the process in the brain.

If it works just like a brain, then it is a brain.

It will work like a part of the brain. So now we are looking at what is minimally necessary for the equation 2 + 3 = 5 to exist out there. It is a dynamic structure but is also the equation. And it functions according to equations that model it.

What is interesting is that the equation seems static, but it is actually time dependant; it is "constructed" through time. The equation is 4 dimensional not 2 dimensional like it would seem to be.

Anyways, I would bet that if we simplified this equation to its absolute core function by simplifying the text, shapes, colours, irrelevant inner processes, memories associated with the equation, and even disregard every unnecessary cell and molecule, and then model a billion other different brains and compare the similarities which also would use different characters and imagine different characters for their number systems, the final product would be a relatively simple process that exists everywhere in nature. It would be universal information that means 2 + 3 = 5. Every advanced civilization would understand this language.

 

[Juma]

It's theoretical. We can see what happens in a thought experiment if what you say makes sense. See below.

That said: I have never said that slme organ or tissue is an equation (or any other thing going on in our mind). Mind stuff are dynamical effects, interactions. Not tje organs themselve. As in the relation between rjnning programs and the platform they run on.

I know that the artificial organ or tissue would actually have to be functioning in the tank. We would simulate the required functions immediately external to it so that it works just like the process in the brain.

If it works just like a brain, then it is a brain.

It will work like a part of the brain. So now we are looking at what is minimally necessary for the equation 2 + 3 = 5 to exist out there. It is a dynamic structure but is also the equation. And it functions according to equations that model it.

What is interesting is that the equation seems static, but it is actually time dependant; it is "constructed" through time. The equation is 4 dimensional not 2 dimensional like it would seem to be.

Anyways, I would bet that if we simplified this equation to its absolute core function by simplifying the text, shapes, colours, irrelevant inner processes, memories associated with the equation, and even disregard every unnecessary cell and molecule, and then model a billion other different brains and compare the similarities which also would use different characters and imagine different characters for their number systems, the final product would be a relatively simple process that exists everywhere in nature. It would be universal information that means 2 + 3 = 5. Every advanced civilization would understand this language.

Eh. I dont think you have any idea at all what you are talking about. First your example: 2+3=5 is a tautology. It is not what you usually mean when talking about equation.
An equation is implicitly defining relations between variables. Since 2+3=5 has no free variables it doesnt.

moreover: 2+3=5 is meaningless without systems for logic, numbers, tokens etc of wich is a part. The equation only has meaning as a part of something bigger.

 

[ryan]

Eh. I dont think you have any idea at all what you are talking about. First your example: 2+3=5 is a tautology. It is not what you usually mean when talking about equation.
An equation is implicitly defining relations between variables. Since 2+3=5 has no free variables it doesnt.

moreover: 2+3=5 is meaningless without systems for logic, numbers, tokens etc of wich is a part. The equation only has meaning as a part of something bigger.

You said this about an equation, "physically it is interactions between neural processes."; now it only has meaning as something bigger. Physically describe what this something is?

 

[Juma]

Eh. I dont think you have any idea at all what you are talking about. First your example: 2+3=5 is a tautology. It is not what you usually mean when talking about equation.
An equation is implicitly defining relations between variables. Since 2+3=5 has no free variables it doesnt.

moreover: 2+3=5 is meaningless without systems for logic, numbers, tokens etc of wich is a part. The equation only has meaning as a part of something bigger.

You said this about an equation, "physically it is interactions between neural processes."; now it only has meaning as something bigger. Physically describe what this something is?

The same.

 

[ryan]

You said this about an equation, "physically it is interactions between neural processes."; now it only has meaning as something bigger. Physically describe what this something is?

The same.

The same as "something bigger" or the same as "interactions between neural processes"?

 

[Juma]

The same.

The same as "something bigger" or the same as "interactions between neural processes"?

What do you think is most reasonable answer to that?

 

[ryan]

The same as "something bigger" or the same as "interactions between neural processes"?

What do you think is most reasonable answer to that?

I have no f***ing idea. You gave me two different answers.

It is very hard to communicate without using a subject and a predicate.

 

[Juma]

What do you think is most reasonable answer to that?

I have no f***ing idea. You gave me two different answers.
.

No. I have given you one answer, and I stick to that.

 

[untermensche]

I have explained many times; it's because of other factors. If there were no unknown forces on the rock including forces such as wind, friction and bugs, then the model would be perfect. The models are perfect when they only are meant for using certain variables that are known.

It's not an explanation. It's a cop out.

You claim we can describe reality with the models, but we can't. We can't even describe the simplest thing, a rock rolling down a hill.

The models do not describe reality. They do not describe what is happening in the world. They describe natural phenomena in isolation, a very different thing.

Our models fall woefully short of predicting very simple real world events.

The model is pure and true for the part of reality it describes.

Throwing in useless words like "pure" is not a convincing argument.

The models describe some natural phenomena in isolation.

That is not describing the real world in action, and it has nothing to do with this imaginary idea of "pure" that you are trying to plaster on top of real ideas.

All that can be said is the model can be used to make some predictions. Nobody can say if it does this "purely" or "impurely", whatever those concepts could possibly mean in this context.

 

[ryan]

I have no f***ing idea. You gave me two different answers.
.

No. I have given you one answer, and I stick to that.

Okay, then I will choose "interactions between neural processes" to be an equation because it is more specific.

So we can go back to imagining what these interactions look like isolated from everything else. We can pinpoint exactly what they are by imagining that we find consistencies in neural activity. This "equation" will look a lot different than what we understand an equation to be, but it will be an equation universally.

 

[ryan]

It's not an explanation. It's a cop out.

You claim we can describe reality with the models, but we can't. We can't even describe the simplest thing, a rock rolling down a hill.

The models do not describe reality. They do not describe what is happening in the world. They describe natural phenomena in isolation, a very different thing.

But if we have enough of these isolated descriptions, then we would essentially duplicate reality.

The model is pure and true for the part of reality it describes.

Throwing in useless words like "pure" is not a convincing argument.

Not a fan of "pure", got it.

The models describe some natural phenomena in isolation.

That is not describing the real world in action, and it has nothing to do with this imaginary idea of "pure" that you are trying to plaster on top of real ideas.

Still not liking "pure", a bit redundant, but I definitely know now.

All that can be said is the model can be used to make some predictions. Nobody can say if it does this "purely" or "impurely", whatever those concepts could possibly mean in this context.

Note to self: don't use "pure" anymore

 

[Kharakov]

Once again, a mass of rocks falling down a cliff is not an equation.

An equation is symbols on paper.

And ... the circle is complete.

Paper beats rock.

 

[Juma]

No. I have given you one answer, and I stick to that.

Okay, then I will choose "interactions between neural processes" to be an equation because it is more specific.

So we can go back to imagining what these interactions look like isolated from everything else. We can pinpoint exactly what they are by imagining that we find consistencies in neural activity. This "equation" will look a lot different than what we understand an equation to be, but it will be an equation universally.

I just told you that the equations is just part of something bigger. Isolating only the interactions for equations will get you almost nowhere. Mathematics, and models, is not a simple list of equations.

 

[ryan]

Okay, then I will choose "interactions between neural processes" to be an equation because it is more specific.

So we can go back to imagining what these interactions look like isolated from everything else. We can pinpoint exactly what they are by imagining that we find consistencies in neural activity. This "equation" will look a lot different than what we understand an equation to be, but it will be an equation universally.

I just told you that the equations is just part of something bigger. Isolating only the interactions for equations will get you almost nowhere. Mathematics, and models, is not a simple list of equations.

Everything is a part of something bigger.

Okay, then imagine isolating the entire system that is required for an equation to exist and have meaning. Again it will be 4 dimensional; not all of it exists at once. It requires inputs from the environment. It is something that exists in the universe; it is out there.

 

[Juma]

I just told you that the equations is just part of something bigger. Isolating only the interactions for equations will get you almost nowhere. Mathematics, and models, is not a simple list of equations.

Everything is a part of something bigger.

Okay, then imagine isolating the entire system that is required for an equation to exist and have meaning. Again it will be 4 dimensional; not all of it exists at once. It requires inputs from the environment. It is something that exists in the universe; it is out there.

So what?