Exactly right! Both are information processors. The brain, too, is an information processor. If no one is home in the computer, then no one is home in the brain. Can we accept this as a possibility? I don't see why we shouldn't.

Alternatively, perhaps "someone" is home in the telegraph, the computer, and the brain. The telegraph, as an information processor, is quite simple and has no where near the processing capabilities of even a modest computer, much less a human brain. So, the "someone" home in a telegraph is very much a simpleton. In this regard, the "someone" home in a brain is far more sophisticated, and likes the taste of fine wine. What's the problem with this notion?

Accept the possibility??? I’m the lead lawyer on the case for that possibility!!
Why do you think I’m vying for a 5D explanation and trying to triangulate a colocated info processor that involves “no one” vs. “some one?” (nothing vs. something).

There is no “one” home—check the important language here, “no one” as in, “no stand-alone _DEFINITION of a knowable entity”.

Indeed, that’s the very purpose of my paragraph above from the “dog speaking!”

No n bags of wires or telegraph poles change the definition of iFido, Siri or Watson, just make “it” more functional.

 

In that adder you made, I argue the numbers are there in their basest of forms, represented as 0's and 1's (i.e., my conceptual "O" number set from the graphic).

But where are the 0s and 1s? My particular circuit worked with voltage levels, namely 5 V and 0 V. We can certainly interpret these voltage values as bit values: 5 V for "on", 0 V for "off". But the 5 V is not a "one" -- indeed, the circuit was powered by the same 5 V used to represent "one", and nobody would ever say that my circuit was being powered by a string of "one"s.

No matter what component we take apart, there are no numbers in there. So, unless you can point to a number, how can you disagree?

That overlaps in _DEFINITION with strings of logic states, and one of the very points I'm getting at. The string of logic states have no meaning until you call them a "number". The number "IS" the string of logic states FIRST — 10111 — before it becomes the abstract symbol "23" (as you literally prove in the hardware, and what is reflected as individual voltage states in your brain).

"String of logic states" is also an abstract concept, not a physical thing. There is no "string of logic states" in my circuit. We might call the 5 V at a particular circuit node "logical true", but the same 5 V at another circuit node would never be called such a thing. This very clearly points to the fact that we are making abstractions. To the physical circuit, it's all just 5 V.

This becomes especially clear if we zoom into the transistor level of the gates. Though we can (loosely) talk as if the gate inputs are "logic states", we cannot do so cogently at the transistor level. The "language" of transistors is voltages and currents; "truth values" do not turn on transistors.

That said, in the same vein, you have repeatedly declared "there is no dog in the light" in the brain. But you are, again, a collection of voltages in grey matter. So why do you insist there's "no dog in the light" in the brain? Why do you show partiality to something "outside" those voltages? Do your voltages know the difference somehow?

Presumably, and I'm making an educated guess here, the physical dog is not a set of voltage configurations. Whatever the physical dog is made of, it reflects light. That light carries with it information from the physical dog in the form of EM energy (which is related to, but not the same as, a collection of voltages). The photoreceptors in my eyes react to the EM energy in the reflected light, causing a whole bunch of other states to change in my brain, resulting in the neural pattern (a collection of voltages) that is my brain's representation of the information of the physical dog.

What specific problem do you have with this account?

That said, I feel we are seriously in need of a working lexicon to continue, so what do you think about one- or two-lining the below words with respect to how you are using them (in relation to your brain's physicality as a reference point, where possible) so we can consensually and precisely reference them without equivocation from here on out; I think that would be excellent:

BIT is a -- not the -- unit of information, an abstraction that allows us to quantify information.

NUMBER is an abstraction of COUNTING, wherein the thing being counted is abstracted away. NUMBER comes from the recognition (association of states) that the COUNTING process is the same, regardless of (and independent from) the thing being counted.

INFORMATION is a measurable physical quantity of states.

MACHINE is an information processor. A processor can PROCESS states, i.e., a processor can map or transform one state to another state.

CONCEPT is a set of associated states.

SYMBOL is a CONCEPT, namely, the CONCEPT that a state can stand in for (represent) another state.

AXIOM is a token that does not exist in the ontological model. In the background formal language model, an axiom is a given, a true theorem that cannot be derived.

YOU is a CONCEPT derived from the CONCEPT of SELF.

SELF is a CONCEPT, namely, the recognition (association) that certain sets of states have a unique relationship to each other. SELF is likely derived from the CONCEPT of FAMILIARITY, which is a function of memory.

 

Also:

FACT is a CONCEPT associated with the CONCEPTs of TRUTH and BELIEF.

TRUTH is a CONCEPT derived from the identity process. The recognition that state A equals state B (an identity) leads to associations of TRUTH: is state D equal to state C?

BELIEF is a CONCEPT derived from imperfect information.

OBJECTIVE TRUTH is a CONCEPT, namely, an intersection of NOT SELF, BELIEF, and TRUTH.

Science, and the CONCEPT of this discussion revolves around the ability for us to agree to what the objective truth is, vs. what we “think” it is.

If by "objective truth" you mean "what actually is", then science makes no claims to that. Science is profoundly empirical; it speaks only to what we experience.

The “dog in the light” notion is simply a CONCEPT that we are discussing. Since science makes a distinction between _SOMETHING happening vs. _NOTHING to achieve this, these are axiomatic elements.

For the sake of discussion, we are assuming that something is happening. I don't think we need to try to disprove solipsism.

“Why do you insist I’m not in your mind if, as a collection of voltage states in matter, that’s all I am to you, and there’s nothing outside those voltages to you (you don’t know the source of them, whether captured from eye sensors or uploaded via flash drive in your neck).

I can't say whether you exist or not (you could be a hallucination or an optical illusion), and -- even if you do exist -- I can't say what you're actually made of. But I'm pretty sure that whatever you actually are, you are not the thing in my brain. The thing in my brain is my brain's representation of you, just like the symbol "42" is a representation of the number that it represents.

If there’s nothing outside those voltages, how do you make a distinction between _OBJECTIVETRUTH of my presence or absence in the light

I have no access to "_OBJECTIVETRUTH"; I cannot speak to what actually is or isn't happening. I can only speak to my experience of it, informed by my experience of other things. You, the light, and my brain may all be part of a single universal state machine, or we may each be distinct entities interacting with one another. In either case, my analysis remains the same: you (the entity or the sub-set of universal state) are not in my brain (a different entity or another sub-set of universal state).

And how do you know you are being asked such a question, or the difference between you and her asking it, or me for that matter, if there’s no dog (me) in the light to begin with, or no Jennifer to ask?

All of those possibilities represent different states. My brain is interpreting the states as if Jennifer is asking such a question. I could be wrong.

If your concept of dogs to begin with are states, how is it that collection of states is not in reference to another dog, if you insist none of us exist outside your mind to even differentiate the facts . . .

As far as I can tell, my brain's states are a miniscule fraction of all the states that exist in the universe. In other words, I believe that the vast majority of things exist outside my brain. Of the relatively few that comprise my brain, some of them are associated with dogs, which likely started the first time my photoreceptors reacted to a dog-like thing.

Frankly, I’m offended you don’t think I exist, and now I’m going to bark.

Silly dog, I never said you don't exist. I said you don't exist in the light (or my brain).

 

Accept the possibility??? I’m the lead lawyer on the case for that possibility!!

So, you're coming from the position of there is no consciousness? I'm coming from the position that every information processor has some degree of consciousness.

I suspect my position will be easier to defend, given the apparent consciousness we seem to be spewing all over the place.

 

So, you're coming from the position of there is no consciousness? I'm coming from the position that every information processor has some degree of consciousness.

I'll take "Discussion Linch Pins" for $2000. The clue: "This foundational starting place should have been hashed out on page 6 of the Jen-Jav Discourse taught in academia, but was joked about on page 25 in April of 2020." (entirely faux hubris statement said for jest purposes)

Holy starting place disparities, Batman!!

Consciousness? Absolutely. In the brain? Absolutely not.

Your starting place allows you to use all sorts of amalgamating magic wands that *I* do not have access to from my starting place, because I have not defined their origin. This is frankly why I can't understand how you're invoking all these terms. You believe consciousness exists in the brain that is imbuing you with all sorts of extra-bit, extra-machine things like _DEFINE and _CONCEPT, _SYMBOL, and _AXIOM self-referencing and even the capacity to "know" something vs. nothing capacities.

No can do for me! All of these things are extra-model to me at present. So I'm actually starting from a less biased place here. Until you can prove consciousness exists in the brain, it doesn't exist any more than in Siri or Watson's or in an array of telegraphing poles and equipment, who couldn't care less about their own voltage or transistor states.

So where does that leave us here?

I don't believe in the solipsistic viewpoint whatsoever. The very fact that it can be understood by the brain that Solipsism might not be true is in fact stand-alone evidence that it might not be, or that "mind" may be a reference to something other than the physical brain as a discernible option is still more evidence. "Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's mind is sure to exist"—i.e., there is no such thing as objective reality or objective truth independent of the mind, and no possibility for us to truly discuss any objective scientific proof outside of what's in our undefined minds. That presents a problem. Because, in the statement, "I evolved over billions of years from the earth," you can't be sure the earth exists, nor the forces that made that happen any more than your ability to say you exist as a derivative of it or anything else. Science IS the study of that which is outside the mind, which assumes it exists independent of it.

 

Your starting place allows you to use all sorts of amalgamating magic wands that *I* do not have access to from my starting place, because I have not defined their origin. This is frankly why I can't understand how you're invoking all these terms. You believe consciousness exists in the brain that is imbuing you with all sorts of extra-bit, extra-machine things like _DEFINE and _CONCEPT, _SYMBOL, and _AXIOM self-referencing and even the capacity to "know" something vs. nothing capacities.

On the contrary, I've defined INFORMATION PROCESSOR from a few simple axioms that make no presumptions about what "is" or "isn't". I claim that CONSCIOUSNESS is a synonym for INFORMATION PROCESSOR.

Now, what magic wands are you talking about?

 

On the contrary, I've defined INFORMATION PROCESSOR from a few simple axioms that make no presumptions about what "is" or "isn't". I claim that CONSCIOUSNESS is a synonym for INFORMATION PROCESSOR.

Now, what magic wands are you talking about?

You believe those concepts "exist" as "something" vs. "nothing."

The dog itself exists "somewhere" that is NOT the mind. You can't show bias to the existence of a dog outside the mind from a solipsistic view point. What is the "dog" outside the mind defined as? The information processor doesn't know the difference.

 

There is no fundamental distinction between signal and noise, disorder or order, TO the information processor (a fundamental proposition of what _INFORMATION really is, and evokes concept _MEAN). Siri can say "Blah blah blah, Ginger, Blah blah," or "Today it is partly cloudy" and doesn't know the diff. If Siri "doesn't know what she's talking about," Siri has no business pretending she does, and this definition does not change as a function of n's size in "n-bit processor". "Knowing" what she's talking about is therefore a separate property from the very information processing she's doing.

 

My entire thrust here is to see if science can be pushed into this territory using principled approach that is not nebulous philosophical tomes. I.e., using propositional (adjusted potentially) logic, we can triangulate the "5D fabric" I'm referencing where "someone is home" that makes a distinction between something vs. nothing (1 vs. 0) and where infinity lies as an actual unbounded, native, uncalculated thing, etc. I know it can be done.

 

.. but you have to be willing to be a moth that will fly close to the flame and burn up any predisposition to solipsistic starting points, as did Newton (hardcore) and Tesla, and even Einstein. If you do, I'm convinced our combined reasoning power can render a ToE as a fatted calf that fell into a vat of piranhas that haven't eaten in weeks (and I'm even an ultra low-calorie vegan who doesn't advocate such things ordinarily!)

 

I fully intend to load up a firetruck with 3,000 gallons of liquid, transdermal senna and firehose it all over science's body to dislodge the years-old impaction of solipsistic inception points that has fallaciously constipated it into thinking "we can't know" certain things. Seriously, who died and put someone in charge to say we can't, again?

Obviously, the heavyweights who have inarguably pushed science the furthest — Newton, Einstein, Tesla, Maxwell, Pascal, Volta, Faraday, Bacon, Leibniz, Euler, Planck, Galilei, Kepler, Boole, Da Vinci, Euclid — in addition to MANY others, were NOT solipsistic thinkers — they started from an ostensible meta-natural viewpoint.

Honestly, if these giants thought it obvious to start from that place, WhyTF are we doing otherwise? Darwin, though he had some great insights, was simply a self-admitted “angerist,” embittered at his ailing health and at the potential of some higher order involved with it, but continued to utter phrases like, "If I look at the eye, I shutter." And I would argue some of his bias was part of the wholesale constipation of a broader spectrum of untapped scientific inquiry. Because, really—we think science is about things and their interactions—but solipstically, we are rendered as a blind car salesman trying to sell a car he can't identify in the lot.

In this pursuit, no one said we have to invoke ANY specific religion of any kind; I don't believe in organized religion personally.

Rather than start from an explicit non-solipsistic viewpoint, I actually feel it can be proven even with propositional logic that it is NOT a rational ontological presupposition (as was pointed to above with evidence of objective reality and truth, and partiality to signal vs. noise, self-knowledge, etc.) E.g., A machine does not care either way, "but we somehow do." "Someone is home." We are therefore not talking about a replicant from Bladerunner or a T-800 (or 9000 for that matter ).

True intelligence does not start from such a close-minded, limited perspective and says, "Well, we can't know XYZ." Whoever insists on this can "tell it to the judge," as they say — in this case, humanity's most intelligent aforementioned minds.

To quote Tesla, "The day science begins to study metaphysical phenomena, it will make more progress in one day than in its entire history."

Ummmm... yeah, it's time to take some advice from the guy who discovered AC current and in turn is responsible for helping us connect via these "machines" that are neither _ALIVE nor _CONSCIOUS.

 

Just thinking aloud... but triangulating the 5D from meta perspective could look kinda like this as a beginning:

1) Existence E exists. It is the set of all knowable somethings and nothings of infinite quantity and magnitude. E = {S, N}
2) “Something” S implies knowable and observable existence as an object somewhere within E having no parts or 1 or more observable x, y, z dimensions of infinite parts. S∩E
3) “Nothing” N implies a state of something somewhere W with no knowable properties within existence.
4) Something S can be state C for conscious (self-aware) or not conscious. Conscious S as S' is said to be “someone” if sufficiently conscious and is said to be elevated in classification to a WHO or SELF, and S' is said to become BEING B while in state C.
5) S' is able to scientifically inquire, or know about E by invoking exactly 6 axiomatic spatial interrogatives from itself upon E using set Q = { WHO, WHAT, WHEN, HOW, WHERE, WHY } to store knowledge within itself reflecting the state of n somethings and nothings and their individual and interrelated states within some subset of E.

 

But where are the 0s and 1s? My particular circuit worked with voltage levels, namely 5 V and 0 V. We can certainly interpret these voltage values as bit values: 5 V for "on", 0 V for "off". But the 5 V is not a "one" -- indeed, the circuit was powered by the same 5 V used to represent "one", and nobody would ever say that my circuit was being powered by a string of "one"s.

No matter what component we take apart, there are no numbers in there. So, unless you can point to a number, how can you disagree?

Hope this makes more sense now, but I see a number as a fundamental existential quantity of “presence” (something outside the mind) vs. “absence” (nothing outside the mind) The presence in this case is the 5V, which is “1”, the absence is 0V, or "0." The number is a function of what is observationally “there” existentially or not.

These would be the only numbers that truly exist, and are the ontological building blocks of every other number, per the graphic I made with propositional O number set.

 

To formalize the intuitive hypothesis (that is actually shared by the likes of Newton):

In the same way consciousness, entanglement, nonlocation appear like magic, I believe the source of energy, matter, information and computation originates in a “parent” substance one might call a 5D fabric or membrane. This substance is infinite in nature and as Feynman mentioned concerning space (in at least 2 lectures), each point has infinite equations to describe it. The substance is what we’re made of ultimately, and it is concentrated in the chest area where we “feel.” It is the source of the “point with no part” Euclidean definition of the most elemental thing. A point, a bit, and a number are all the same in this substance. It is sizeless, timeless, clockless, infinite-bit in throughput and storage Every point within it is a true 3D object with an “inside” mind and an outside “viewport” into reality, which is the “environmental state” of the substance. This substance is the origin of Frege’s “sense.” the senses find their origin in the substance, which are uncalculated forms that process data at different frequencies. When you close your mind, you’re the substance viewing an environmental incarnation of the substance. Every point is connected to every other point in it, and chance and time are illusions of it.

 

You believe those concepts "exist" as "something" vs. "nothing."

A necessary background assumption of any model is that the axioms are taken as given, so I don't have to prove the existence of INFORMATION or STATES. Theorems, such as CONCEPT, are derived from the axioms, thus their existence is given, as well. (Note that "something" and "nothing" are CONCEPTs, not theorems of the model.)

The dog itself exists "somewhere" that is NOT the mind. You can't show bias to the existence of a dog outside the mind from a solipsistic view point. What is the "dog" outside the mind defined as? The information processor doesn't know the difference.

Again, the model references STATES not "locations". The model allows for distinguished subsets of states -- for example, an information processors is a distinguished subset -- but the model imposes no geometric notion of distance between states.

When I say that the dog is not in the light, I am really saying this: there is no identity function (process) between the subset of states associated with the physical dog and the subset of states associated with the reflection of the dog in the light. In other words, let \( S_\text{DOG} \) be the set of states that we call the physical dog, and let \( S_\text{LIGHT} \) be the set of states that we call the reflection of the dog in the light. Then, the statement "the dog is not in the light" is the natural language way of saying \[ S_\text{DOG} \ne S_\text{LIGHT} \] Nothing more is implied. Using this notation, we can trace the information flow when I see a dog: \[ S_\text{DOG} \to S_\text{LIGHT} \to S_\text{BRAIN} \] All three sets of states are not the same, but they are related by the original information that was in \( S_\text{DOG} \).

It is in this sense -- and this sense only -- that I say, "the dog is not in the light" and "the dog is not in the brain".

 

There is no fundamental distinction between signal and noise, disorder or order, TO the information processor (a fundamental proposition of what _INFORMATION really is, and evokes concept _MEAN). Siri can say "Blah blah blah, Ginger, Blah blah," or "Today it is partly cloudy" and doesn't know the diff. If Siri "doesn't know what she's talking about," Siri has no business pretending she does, and this definition does not change as a function of n's size in "n-bit processor". "Knowing" what she's talking about is therefore a separate property from the very information processing she's doing.

100% disagree. Any distinction between signal and noise is entirely dependent on the processor. A microphone and a CCD chip have very different notions of what is signal and what is noise.

Siri absolutely knows the difference between Gilligan's Island characters and today's weather. If she didn't, then when you asked her for the temperature she might say "The Professor"!

 

I fully intend to load up a firetruck with 3,000 gallons of liquid, transdermal senna and firehose it all over science's body to dislodge the years-old impaction of solipsistic inception points that has fallaciously constipated it into thinking "we can't know" certain things.

You seem to associate epistemological limits with solipsism. As I see it, solipsism -- as the belief that only I exist -- is epistemological hubris. There's nothing solipsistic about science. Indeed, there's hardly any epistemology in science -- science presumes that we can know how the world works, and says very little about how the world actually is.

Personally, I'm well-convinced there are hard limits to what we can know. I'm also well-convinced that we are far from reaching those limits, so onwards we should go until the universe directly tells us "No mas!" To me, solipsism is a toy theory that's closer to a joke than a reasonable worldview. So, I'm confused why you're grouping epistemological limits, science, and solipsism under a single, grotesque umbrella.

Ummmm... yeah, it's time to take some advice from the guy who discovered AC current and in turn is responsible for helping us connect via these "machines" that are neither _ALIVE nor _CONSCIOUS.

Tesla was a syphilitic crackpot, just saying.

 

A necessary background assumption of any model is that the axioms are taken as given, so I don't have to prove the existence of INFORMATION or STATES. Theorems, such as CONCEPT, are derived from the axioms, thus their existence is given, as well. (Note that "something" and "nothing" are CONCEPTs, not theorems of the model.)


Again, the model references STATES not "locations". The model allows for distinguished subsets of states -- for example, an information processors is a distinguished subset -- but the model imposes no geometric notion of distance between states.

When I say that the dog is not in the light, I am really saying this: there is no identity function (process) between the subset of states associated with the physical dog and the subset of states associated with the reflection of the dog in the light. In other words, let \( S_\text{DOG} \) be the set of states that we call the physical dog, and let \( S_\text{LIGHT} \) be the set of states that we call the reflection of the dog in the light. Then, the statement "the dog is not in the light" is the natural language way of saying \[ S_\text{DOG} \ne S_\text{LIGHT} \] Nothing more is implied. Using this notation, we can trace the information flow when I see a dog: \[ S_\text{DOG} \to S_\text{LIGHT} \to S_\text{BRAIN} \] All three sets of states are not the same, but they are related by the original information that was in \( S_\text{DOG} \).

It is in this sense -- and this sense only -- that I say, "the dog is not in the light" and "the dog is not in the brain".

Right, and “states” are nothing more, existentially, than presence or absence of voltages and switches. And you are invoking axiom “CONCIOUSNESS” that allows your brain to “care” about doing all sorts of things that are assumed to exist to elevate them into concepts, axioms and symbols. Something no machine does.

If your brain was strewn across the earth, where each neuron was likened to a telegraph pole 70 miles away from each other, connected via soft tissue, you’re going to say the “dog” exists between 55 towns? What is the “wand” being employed to “label” a certain number of poles as “dog?” Who is doing the labeling? Other poles? No one or group of poles care the group of poles represents it. There is truly no “who” or “what” element anywhere to be found outside of magic.

 

Just thinking aloud... but triangulating the 5D from meta perspective could look kinda like this as a beginning:

1) Existence E exists. It is the set of all knowable somethings and nothings of infinite quantity and magnitude. E = {S, N}
2) “Something” S implies knowable and observable existence as an object somewhere within E having no parts or 1 or more observable x, y, z dimensions of infinite parts. S∩E
3) “Nothing” N implies a state of something somewhere W with no knowable properties within existence.
4) Something S can be state C for conscious (self-aware) or not conscious. Conscious S as S' is said to be “someone” if sufficiently conscious and is said to be elevated in classification to a WHO or SELF, and S' is said to become BEING B while in state C.
5) S' is able to scientifically inquire, or know about E by invoking exactly 6 axiomatic spatial interrogatives from itself upon E using set Q = { WHO, WHAT, WHEN, HOW, WHERE, WHY } to store knowledge within itself reflecting the state of n somethings and nothings and their individual and interrelated states within some subset of E.

It's good to try to formalize one's thoughts. Maybe we can tighten them up a bit.

Propositions 1, 2, and 3 have circular definitions: you define E in terms of S and N, and then S and N in terms of E.

Part of your definition of E involves words such as "knowable" and "infinite quantity" that need to be defined first.

You don't qualify what properties S must have for it to be C. Though it's not always necessary to enumerate the properties of something, certain ideas (like consciousness) definitely need it.

A note on notation: the complement of a set S -- i.e., the set of things NOT in S -- is sometimes written as S', so I'd use a different symbol for the set of S with the property C.

 

You seem to associate epistemological limits with solipsism. As I see it, solipsism -- as the belief that only I exist -- is epistemological hubris. There's nothing solipsistic about science. Indeed, there's hardly any epistemology in science -- science presumes that we can know how the world works, and says very little about how the world actually is.

Personally, I'm well-convinced there are hard limits to what we can know. I'm also well-convinced that we are far from reaching those limits, so onwards we should go until the universe directly tells us "No mas!" To me, solipsism is a toy theory that's closer to a joke than a reasonable worldview. So, I'm confused why you're grouping epistemological limits, science, and solipsism under a single, grotesque umbrella.


Tesla was a syphilitic crackpot, just saying.

haha... great phrase. The “Grotesque Umbrellas” are coming to the MetLife Stadium, Sunday, Sunday, Sunday... tickets on sale at Ticketmasters everywhere where where.

Because my model is working with the most brutal of basic, non-conscious brain-based elements. I will not label any hardware or software portion of an iPhone that’s working with 0’s and 1’s any different than any other. Filter banks and gates, IC’s of any kind, firmware, software...it is ALL nondescript state shifting I refuse to label any different from any other. Does Siri have any “premises,” when she utters some psychological riff off Wiki? No. She is not conscious, and I don’t see you as either as a function of your brain.