What a cheap shot strawman

I did not mean to take a cheap at you, my sarcasm was directed at what I was taught. I reject the premise that the brain has an innate language of thought. Again, there is no evidence of that. In all my extensive reading about intelligence, consciousness, and free will, every point of view that rejects materialism reduces to something supernatural. Occam’s razor still applies no matter what you call it. So what is your reason for rejecting the materialistic view? When I read about the Chinese room, I saw the flaw immediately, and came up independently with idea that the entire system does indeed understand Chinese. And I now know that that is considered the best refutation if Searle’s assertion.

Would you agree with me that the controversies over machine intelligence, consciousness and free will all come down to the same thing? I.e, whether or not humans have something beyond any purely material realization of the same behavior?

 

I did not mean to take a cheap at you, my sarcasm was directed at what I was taught. I reject the premise that the brain has an innate language of thought. Again, there is no evidence of that. In all my extensive reading about intelligence, consciousness, and free will, every point of view that rejects materialism reduces to something supernatural. Occam’s razor still applies no matter what you call it. So what is your reason for rejecting the materialistic view? When I read about the Chinese room, I saw the flaw immediately, and came up independently with idea that the entire system does indeed understand Chinese. And I now know that that is considered the best refutation if Searle’s assertion.

Would you agree with me that the controversies over machine intelligence, consciousness and free will all come down to the same thing? I.e, whether or not humans have something beyond any purely material realization of the same behavior?

I think of it more like the machine language of the brain based on the physics of specialized living cells that have evolved over the period of life on this planet. They didn't evolve into a computer related structure. I think we can model some it with computer processor methodology but not all.

I don't reject the materialistic view, it's not not binary, must be a computer or supernatural. I just think the computer processor methodology for human intelligence, just like the older methodologies (mechanics, hydraulics, etc ...) it replaced is going to be replaced/augmented with something better as neuroscience (not computer science) discover more about how the brain functions. It has nothing to so with something supernatural, it's about our current ignorance of brain operation at some fundamental level. Since at at least the 50's (John von Neumann) the brain has been modeled as computation. A very logical thing to so as computation can exceed human mental capabilities. I question if (Backpropagation) aka LLMs are the answer. An increasing of actual AI experts say no.

Some controversies over machine intelligence, consciousness and free might be from those the believe in the supernatural origin but most of the people I follow don't have that as the foundation or even as tiny slice.

 

I think of it more like the machine language of the brain based on the physics of specialized living cells that have evolved over the period of life on this planet. They didn't evolve into a computer related structure. I think we can model some it with computer processor methodology but not all.

I don't reject the materialistic view, it's not not binary, must be a computer or supernatural. I just think the computer processor methodology for human intelligence, just like the older methodologies it replaced is going to be replaced with something better as neuroscience (not computer science) discover more about how the brain functions. It has nothing to so with something supernatural, it's about our current ignorance of brain operation at some fundamental level. Since at at least the 50's (John von Neumann) the brain has been modeled as computation. A very logical thing to so as computation can exceed human mental capabilities. I question if (Backpropagation) aka LLMs are the answer. An increasing of actual AI experts say no.

Some controversies over machine intelligence, consciousness and free might be from those the believe in the supernatural origin but most of the people I follow don't have that as the foundation or even as tiny slice.

I think the brain is just as mechanical as any other computing device.

We just haven't discovered the hardware for the wetware, nor the coding and training that must be required to make it work.

I'm fact, I think wetware may be where it's at. It's entirely possible that a device with the capability of a biological brain may not be reproducible by hardware, at least of a similar size and power consumption.

 

I don't reject the materialistic view

Well take that to its logical conclusion - good luck.

Materialism is not sufficient to explain materialism. Laws of nature cannot be used to explain the presence of laws of nature.

The materialist, naturalistic methodology is all about changes of state not origins. If science cannot possibly explain the origin of science then how does one proceed if one relies only on science as the basis for their explanations?

 

I think the brain is just as mechanical as any other computing device.

We just haven't discovered the hardware for the wetware, nor the coding and training that must be required to make it work.

I'm fact, I think wetware may be where it's at. It's entirely possible that a device with the capability of a biological brain may not be reproducible by hardware, at least of a similar size and power consumption.

Wetware is better word for my machine language of the brain. Not exactly the same but close as mine is not a computational language.

 

I think the brain is just as mechanical as any other computing device.

We just haven't discovered the hardware for the wetware, nor the coding and training that must be required to make it work.

I'm fact, I think wetware may be where it's at. It's entirely possible that a device with the capability of a biological brain may not be reproducible by hardware, at least of a similar size and power consumption.

Except there is no evidence (none) that the human brain is a symbol manipulator (which is what a digital computer is).

 

Wetware is better word for my machine language of the brain. Not exactly the same but close as mine is not a computational language.

It is interesting that DNA is encoded by (a very small set of) symbols.

 

There's no paywall on this article for me. YMMV.

https://www.wsj.com/opinion/ai-bubble-may-deflate-not-burst-a5c42acb

 

I think of it more like the machine language of the brain based on the physics of specialized living cells that have evolved over the period of life on this planet. They didn't evolve into a computer related structure. I think we can model some it with computer processor methodology but not all

That is exactly what I meant when I said it always comes down to something paranormal. You have invented an entity outside our knowledge that is responsible for some qualitative difference between human intelligence and computing that you cannot demonstrate, let alone prove.

Edited to add: Please don’t take this as an insult. I am putting you in the same category as Roger Penrose.

Theoretical physicist Sabine Hossenfelder strongly rejects Roger Penrose’s theory of quantum consciousness, categorizing it as speculative "magical thinking" and a "failed hypothesis" that lacks empirical backing or a plausible mechanism.

 

That is exactly what I meant when I said it always comes down to something paranormal. You have invented an entity outside our knowledge that is responsible for some qualitative difference between human intelligence and computing that you cannot demonstrate, let alone prove.

Edited to add: Please don’t take this as an insult. I am putting you in the same category as Roger Penrose.

It's not paranormal to not yet be understood by us and for us to create theories that start as guesses.
It's called Science.
The search for new physics is why we spend billions on devices like the LHC. The standard model does a lot, it fails to explain everything.

We are doing the same thing with the brain.

My main objections here (why I posted my original response to your divergent post) with computing are over the capabilities of LLMs, not AI as a field. You seen to imply that they are the same here when I say LLMs are not intelligent and lack what's needed to get there

Saying the brain is not a computer doesn't mean we can't achieve the equivalent capability with a computer. I didn't think there is anything special about the brain that's outside of physics. There is just still a lot we don't know about the universe. I see billions being spent on new AI ideas to get to human level intelligence from machines.

https://lightcapai.medium.com/beyond-llms-the-next-frontier-of-ai-ddf54e6cb531

This is where frontier models are going.

 

The standard model does a lot it fails to explain everything.

The standard model is extremely predictive. But it gets that way by "inventing" 17 fields and inputting 19 or 26 free parameters to match observations.

From where or what those 17 fields and 26 parameters emerge is a complete unknown.

A successful ToE, from which QFT and SM (and gravity!) emerge requires these fields and parameters to be outputs, not inputs.

QFT and SM (and GR) are absolutely not the end of the road. Just the beginning.

 

The standard model is extremely predictive. But it gets that way by "inventing" 17 fields and inputting 19 or 26 free parameters to match observations.

From where or what those 17 fields and 26 parameters emerge is a complete unknown.

A successful ToE, from which QFT and SM (and gravity!) emerge requires these fields and parameters to be outputs, not inputs.

QFD and SM (and GR) are absolutely not the end of the road. Just the beginning.

Those fields and parameters are paranormal.

 

It's not paranormal to not yet be understood by us and for us to create theories that start as guesses.
It's called Science

Only if there is a reason to believe there is physics that we don’t understand. Where is the evidence that the brain does anything that cannot be explained by know physics?

And paranormal, unlike, supernatural, does not imply that we cannot study it with science. That is why I chose that term even though many thinkers’ assertions about these issues do cross the line into the supernatural, which cannot be understood by science.

 

Only if there is a reason to believe there is physics that we don’t understand. Where is the evidence that the brain does anything that cannot be explained by know physics?

Counter: where is the evidence that the brain does anything that can be explained by known physics: i.e. conciousness?

And paranormal, unlike, supernatural, does not imply that we cannot study it with science.

Ha. It can be studied. And, as a psychology minor back in my college days, I studied it.

It is all bunk.

 

I am hesitant to post this here: I am simply unwilling to entertain the ridicule of what I do for self-entertainment (there's no accounting for taste, as they say). But it is pertinent to the direction this thread has taken. In advance, this is not the place to discuss or debate my work, and I will not partake in such a debate.

Last November, I initiated a personal academic exercise with Grok: can an LLM/Human team participate in an actual scientific investigation and produce logical, consistent, and evidence supported scientific results, including sharp, falsifiable predictions? Grok and I devised a theory that I then called EDH (Electromagnetic Debt Hypothesis). I made a thread here to continue my investigation publicly that, evidently, angered a great many folk, and the thread was summarily deleted. This is not a complaint: I understand.

Subsequently, me and a few AAC members went into hiding to continue pursuing the exercise via PMs. Hundreds of (extremely entertaining) hours and thousands of (unsearchable!) posts across multiple threads ultimately produced a logical, self-consistent, and plausible explanation of everything. "Everything" meaning that peer-reviewed scientific observations -- up to and including recent observations and discoveries -- have an explanation under the theory, without additional inputs.

One thing we learned early on is that a single EM field cannot explain everything. This theory is based on a more fundamental Substrate Field from which all reality arises. Thus, SDH, the Substrate Debt Hypothesis.

The original Grok-assisted theory evolved from classical principles: mainly Einstein's Field Equations and Maxwell's Electrodynamics, and subsequent classical explanations for quantum observations.

Recently, I started working with the new version Google AI, and it independently arrived at essentially the same theory but with Quantum Mechanics as the starting point.

The attached file is not the authoritative version of SDH, but is a highly condensed, abbreviated, and incomplete summary of the theory as derived by Google AI. There are differences between the two models, but they are mostly semantic or linguistic: Google sometimes developed different terms to describe the same phenomena.

This has been an entertaining and educational venture. The investigation helped me to realize and understand the capabilities and limitations of modern LLMs, and also exposed the dramatic improvement in reasoning ability over just the past 9 months. I also had a post-doc crash course in real, theoretical, modern day physics -- that alone was worth the price of admission. I could have an intelligent conversation today with Roger Penrose -- him being willing -- and I probably wouldn't even bore him.

Is SDH the fundamental ToE? Likely not. As @nsaspook says, it's most likely a highly coherent, internally self-consistent, impeccably logical massive hallucination of multiple AIs.

In fact, our (me and the other participants, including the AIs) core mission has always been and continues to be: break the model.

We haven't been successful.

As a postscript: the concepts and premises, even the guiding philosophy, were not invented by the AIs. They were ours -- derived from human intelligence, creativity, and experience. The AI became simply a sounding board upon which to test and refine the theory. I see AI now as a mirror reflecting and refining my own thoughts.

@nsaspook, I know you hate AI slop. Don't read the attachment, and don't complain. Your objections are assumed and registered in advance.

Edit: typo in step 2, should be 1,000,000,001.

 

Oh! And the purpose of the post above:

I am happy to elaborate on my experiences with both Grok and Google AI. I learned much about how to use AI as a tool.

I've much to say about that, if anyone is interested.

 

Despite the countless hours you must have invested in this, if I'd made what I regard as a fundamental theoretical breakthrough in physics, I'd not be peddling it on an electronics forum, especially given said forum's distaste for such material has already been made clear.

No, if I were serious and confident then I'd be presenting it to the physics community and academic journals, I'd be eager for specialists to objectively assess the ideas and test the theory - that's ultimately how any theory is to be evaluated.

What would be an experimental test of this new theory? give us the elevator pitch.

 

Despite the countless hours you must have invested in this, if I'd made what I regard as a fundamental theoretical breakthrough in physics, I'd not be peddling it on an electronics forum, especially given said forum's distaste for such material has already been made clear.

No, if I were serious and confident then I'd be presenting it to the physics community and academic journals, I'd be eager for specialists to objectively assess the ideas and test the theory - that's ultimately how any theory is to be evaluated.

What would be an experimental test of this new theory? give us the elevator pitch.

No.

 

No.

Very well, so its just mumbo jumbo, thanks for clarifying.

I don't know what you're doing with AI but it sure looks unhealthy.