Tesla was a syphilitic crackpot, just saying.

Yes, as I’m sure the other 10 names I rattled off can be disqualified by something on the same order?

 

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.

If I understand you correctly, "1" and "0" are the only numbers. Other entities, such as "42", are compositions of "1" and "0". Is that right?

I have a couple of problems with this viewpoint. First, the notion of 5 V being "1" and 0 V being "0" seems completely arbitrary to me. I take it that you mean "existence" and "non-existence", but 0 V exists as surely as 5 V does. They're just arbitrary labels. Indeed, not only is the 5 V meaningless without the 0 V (because the 5 V is measured with respect to the 0 V), but the physics of the circuit are exactly the same if we say that the 5 V is actually 0 V, and the 0 V is actually -5 V. Indeed, with respect to the voltage at a point on Jupiter, the 5 V might be 294,385 V and the 0 V would be 294,380 V. I don't see how in any sense one "exists" and the other doesn't.

Second, treating "42" as a composition of other numbers is perfectly common. In number theory, we'd say that 42 is composed of 7,3, and 2. But we don't say that 7, 3, and 2 are more fundamental (or more "pure" or whatever) numbers than 42. Any such distinction seems completely arbitrary. Furthermore, the standard construction of the natural numbers (Peano) uses only the empty set {}. Even if we associate {} with 0, we don't need "1" as an elemental number. To wit, 1 = { {} }, i.e., the set whose member is the empty set.

So, by your logic, we should treat "0" as the only fundamental number, no?

Finally, regardless of how you define them, there are no numbers in the circuit. Your notion of "presence" or "existence" and their corresponding counterparts are not sufficient to characterize a number, as the circuit is chock full of present, existing things, and positively overflowing with non-present and non-existing things. The capacitor at the end of the switch is "present" -- is it a number? The wire at the end of the capacitor is "present" -- is it also a number? Is the cookie monster that's not in my circuit a "0"? What about the married bachelor that's not in my circuit, is he a "0", too?

 

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"!

“Notions?????” Siri has a “notion” when it comes to the weather vs. Audis?

Essentially you’re saying any n gates, wires, and switches are notion-driven?? Somehow they know or care about what voltages matter?

 

Question for you:

There’s the existing hardware-software aggregate that has been assembled and programmed by Apple called “Siri.”

Now there’s you, a 2090 version that has _CONSCIOUSNESS, called J-Siri.

Other than access to more n-bits, processing algorithms, clockspeed, etc.: What are the exact differences between Siri and J-Siri to you?

 

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

There's nothing formal about your next paragraph, and I can't make much sense of it. Also, I don't believe Newton shared your particular viewpoint, but even if he did, it wouldn't make it more or less true. Our arguments must stand on their own.

Same goes for Feynman, but if you're going to invoke his authority to bolster your point, you need to provide citations.

 

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.

No. No. No.

There are no voltages or switches in my definition of STATE. A set of voltages or switches are possible representations of STATE, but they are not STATE.

In my description of dog -> light -> brain, precisely where did I invoke "consciousness" or "care"? Be very explicit please.

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.

What label? In dog -> light -> brain I never mentioned labels. A state (dog) was transformed (light) and then transformed again (brain). The transformations are not labels. What are you talking about?

 

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.

To ease the linguistic spasms I get every time you say that computers work with 0s and 1s, can you instead say that they work with bits? I'd consider it a personal favor and the mark of a kind, generous state machine.

Now, nondescript state shifting is precisely what I claim that information processors do. That has nothing to do with solipsism!

Does Siri have "any 'premises'" when she quotes Wiki? Of course she does! How can you insist otherwise? What do you think happens when I say to my phone, "Hey Siri, what is the capital of Utah?" The state machine that is Siri detects, parses, and contextualizes the information in my acoustic signal, shifts various states around, looks up the appropriate Wikipedia entry, and gives me the result. That's incredibly "premised", I would say.

A non-premised response would be random! Seriously, how can you dispute this?

 

yes, as I’m sure the other 10 names I rattled off can be disqualified by something on the same order?

I'm happy to discuss history, especially the history of great thinkers. Shall we take a break and talk about Tesla or Newton or Einstein? Nah? Then let's leave them out of this.

 

“Notions?????” Siri has a “notion” when it comes to the weather vs. Audis?

Essentially you’re saying any n gates, wires, and switches are notion-driven?? Somehow they know or care about what voltages matter?

How would you describe how the gates, wires, and switches are driven? Serious question. If Siri doesn't know about notions such as "capital of Utah", then how am I getting a valid response to the question?

 

Question for you:

There’s the existing hardware-software aggregate that has been assembled and programmed by Apple called “Siri.”

Now there’s you, a 2090 version that has _CONSCIOUSNESS, called J-Siri.

Other than access to more n-bits, processing algorithms, clockspeed, etc.: What are the exact differences between Siri and J-Siri to you?

Difficult question to answer accurately and precisely, because I don't know exactly how I work. Nonetheless, I believe that whatever it is that I call "consciousness" in myself is inherent, to some degree or another, in Siri. It is very likely that some minimum level of complexity (more bits) is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition of "being conscious like humans are". I wish I knew what the missing sufficiency is, though I suspect it has something to do with hundreds of millions of years of evolution.

 

No. No. No.

There are no voltages or switches in my definition of STATE. A set of voltages or switches are possible representations of STATE, but they are not STATE.

In my description of dog -> light -> brain, precisely where did I invoke "consciousness" or "care"? Be very explicit please.


What label? In dog -> light -> brain I never mentioned labels. A state (dog) was transformed (light) and then transformed again (brain). The transformations are not labels. What are you talking about?

There's nothing formal about your next paragraph, and I can't make much sense of it. Also, I don't believe Newton shared your particular viewpoint, but even if he did, it wouldn't make it more or less true. Our arguments must stand on their own.

Same goes for Feynman, but if you're going to invoke his authority to bolster your point, you need to provide citations.

Formal was an ambiguous word. I really meant “official summary of my intuition.”

Newton was a die-hard protestant. He believed in the existence of spirit and soul, which is what I’m triangulating here agnostic to any specific religious framework.

There are at least two videos on Feynman where he says that (I’d have to find them).

Regardless, you’re 100% correct—the theory must stand alone. I was bringing up names of other legit scientists simply to show they don’t start from a solipsistic basis.

 

If I understand you correctly, "1" and "0" are the only numbers. Other entities, such as "42", are compositions of "1" and "0". Is that right?

I have a couple of problems with this viewpoint. First, the notion of 5 V being "1" and 0 V being "0" seems completely arbitrary to me. I take it that you mean "existence" and "non-existence", but 0 V exists as surely as 5 V does. They're just arbitrary labels. Indeed, not only is the 5 V meaningless without the 0 V (because the 5 V is measured with respect to the 0 V), but the physics of the circuit are exactly the same if we say that the 5 V is actually 0 V, and the 0 V is actually -5 V. Indeed, with respect to the voltage at a point on Jupiter, the 5 V might be 294,385 V and the 0 V would be 294,380 V. I don't see how in any sense one "exists" and the other doesn't.

Second, treating "42" as a composition of other numbers is perfectly common. In number theory, we'd say that 42 is composed of 7,3, and 2. But we don't say that 7, 3, and 2 are more fundamental (or more "pure" or whatever) numbers than 42. Any such distinction seems completely arbitrary. Furthermore, the standard construction of the natural numbers (Peano) uses only the empty set {}. Even if we associate {} with 0, we don't need "1" as an elemental number. To wit, 1 = { {} }, i.e., the set whose member is the empty set.

So, by your logic, we should treat "0" as the only fundamental number, no?

Finally, regardless of how you define them, there are no numbers in the circuit. Your notion of "presence" or "existence" and their corresponding counterparts are not sufficient to characterize a number, as the circuit is chock full of present, existing things, and positively overflowing with non-present and non-existing things. The capacitor at the end of the switch is "present" -- is it a number? The wire at the end of the capacitor is "present" -- is it also a number? Is the cookie monster that's not in my circuit a "0"? What about the married bachelor that's not in my circuit, is he a "0", too?

Yes, all numbers are fundamentally built on 0 and 1, the O set.

Existentially (and from my model) there are just the base observational states in existence: “there” or “not there.“ It is the concatenation of these contrasting states that yield “unique amalgamations” we deem as “numbers.”

We are using typically “something else” to represent the 1 in any system. E.g., It’s dots and dashes, not dots and nothing.

“42” as it’s elementally represented by states in any adder is: 0101010
There is no actual amalgamation to the machine. Each state is independent!

What gives you the right to call 0101010 any “thing” or even “number?” “Consciousness”: the magic amalgamater.

0101010 can be “factored” by the amalgamater only! There are no factors otherwise!

Any human being can use any two contrasting “something”’s to telegraph the base phenomena here.

0101010 can be represented by a conscious living alpha-numeric-distinguishing person as Bachelor-Church-Bachelor-Church-Bachelor-Church-Bachelor. Or cookie monster and faucet.

These are higher level abstractions of “the amalgamater.”

 

Regardless, you’re 100% correct—the theory must stand alone. I was bringing up names of other legit scientists simply to show they don’t start from a solipsistic basis.

Solipsism is a strawman. No one is starting from a position of solipsism.

 

How would you describe how the gates, wires, and switches are driven? Serious question. If Siri doesn't know about notions such as "capital of Utah", then how am I getting a valid response to the question?

Enter “the amalgamater” again.

You: Hey Siri, what’s the 45th State of the Union?

Siri: 01010101 01110100 01100001 01101000

You: That’s meaningless to me! What’s that represent or mean?

Siri: I don’t know what represent or meaning means. I gave you the answer from my flash drive, bro!

You: Well, I’m gonna have to go ahead and amalgamate those zeroes and ones to correlate them to 1 “something” that makes Frege’s “sense,“ because 0’s and 1’s in close proximity don’t work for me for some reason, even though you and I are state processors but I claim Utah exists independently of the logic states you store. Consciousness is some powerful stuff!

 

Solipsism is a strawman. No one is starting from a position of solipsism.

Entirely implied. If one does not believe in knowing something outside the brain, solipsism is the implied starting point.

 

Yes, all numbers are fundamentally built on 0 and 1, the O set.

Existentially (and from my model) there are just the base observational states in existence: “there” or “not there.“

Observed by whom? What is the existential/ontological status of a state if one observer says "there" and another says "not there"?

You conveniently ignored my example with the 5V and 0V. What is "there" about the 5V that is lacking in the 0V?

In my version of the model, NUMBERs come from COUNTING, which is an association of STATES. Associated by whom? Associated by the information processor that is doing the COUNTING. No observer, or ontologically ambiguous "thereness", is required.

It is the concatenation of these contrasting states that yield “unique amalgamations” we deem as “numbers.”

So, in your model, numbers do not exist without humans ("we")? You believe there are numbers in my adder circuit. If tomorrow every human dies, what will happen to the numbers in my circuit? Do they cease to exist?

“42” as it’s elementally represented by states in any adder is: 0101010

This is too specious not to take at face value. You need to clarify the difference between 0101010 and 101010. Which one of those is the "actual" elemental representation? What makes "2A" or "42" or "forty-two" less elemental?

What gives you the right to call 0101010 any “thing” or even “number?” “Consciousness”: the magic amalgamater.

What gives Siri the "right" to treat the bit string 0101010 as the number 42, or the first few pixels of a picture of MARIO?

0101010 can be “factored” by the amalgamater only! There are no factors otherwise!

Prime factorization is an information process, just as electromagnetic modulation is an information process. What you call "amalgamater", I'm calling information processor.

0101010 can be represented by a conscious living alpha-numeric-distinguishing person as Bachelor-Church-Bachelor-Church-Bachelor-Church-Bachelor. Or cookie monster and faucet.

Siri can do the same thing! Prove me wrong.

 

Enter “the amalgamater” again.

You: Hey Siri, what’s the 45th State of the Union?

Siri: 01010101 01110100 01100001 01101000

You: That’s meaningless to me! What’s that represent or mean?

Siri: I don’t know what represent or meaning means. I gave you the answer from my flash drive, bro!

You: Well, I’m gonna have to go ahead and amalgamate those zeroes and ones to correlate them to 1 “something” that makes Frege’s “sense,“ because 0’s and 1’s in close proximity don’t work for me for some reason, even though you and I are state processors but I claim Utah exists independently of the logic states you store. Consciousness is some powerful stuff!

WTF? Siri literally says "Provo is the capital of Utah" (or whatever the actual capital of Utah is; ironically, Siri knows better than I do!).

If I ask a rock about Utah, not much will happen. If I ask a human about Utah, I'll probably get a response related to Utah. Siri is more like that latter than the former, yes? So, what's the difference?

 

Entirely implied. If one does not believe in knowing something outside the brain, solipsism is the implied starting point.

We're clearly using the word solipsism in different ways, so we should abandon it as an ambiguous term.

The thing you're talking about -- the belief that everything outside the brain is unknowable -- isn't my premise, nor is it the standard scientific premise. Science doesn't really speak to epistemology, so let's leave science out of that pile of laundry. As for me, depending on how you define "know", I believe either that we can't know anything at all (not even what's going on within our brains), or we can know n-bits worth of information about the world (including our brains), for some very large n. In both cases, the distinction between inside or outside of brain is irrelevant. So, can we agree that what you've been referring to as solipsism doesn't apply to this discussion?

 

WTF? Siri literally says "Provo is the capital of Utah" (or whatever the actual capital of Utah is; ironically, Siri knows better than I do!).

If I ask a rock about Utah, not much will happen. If I ask a human about Utah, I'll probably get a response related to Utah. Siri is more like that latter than the former, yes? So, what's the difference?

Everything boils down to this one point, so let's concentrate on this lest we have 900 messages referencing the same core element.

When you say "Siri literally says 'Provo is the capital of Utah' (or whatever the actual capital of Utah is; ironically, Siri knows better than I do!)"

Salt Lake City I just confirmed is the capital, and that's a good point to key off. Because you would say she "knows" the difference, and I do not. She, or IT is simply "programmed" to "reflect" a difference. And there's a big difference!

From your model, you're a state processor and so is she. We must discuss it from that perspective.

Remember, discrete bit processors are discrete bit processors. Each bit is kept discrete!

What is she ACTUALLY saying to "HER?" She simply DAC'd the string of binaries into a pressure wave to represent them. You "caught" the wave. The wave hits your ACD, and those strings are sent to your neurons.

At no time is the information anything more than discrete "binary states" all the way down.

How can you define meaning, if at no time you do not distinguish between a string of states and what they represent as "1 referential undivided form"? There's no actual knowledge to you outside of "more state strings."

 

We're clearly using the word solipsism in different ways, so we should abandon it as an ambiguous term.

The thing you're talking about -- the belief that everything outside the brain is unknowable -- isn't my premise, nor is it the standard scientific premise. Science doesn't really speak to epistemology, so let's leave science out of that pile of laundry. As for me, depending on how you define "know", I believe either that we can't know anything at all (not even what's going on within our brains), or we can know n-bits worth of information about the world (including our brains), for some very large n. In both cases, the distinction between inside or outside of brain is irrelevant. So, can we agree that what you've been referring to as solipsism doesn't apply to this discussion?

I can agree we need to throw out the entire component for now because it's not immediately germane. :>

"Science doesn't really speak to epistemology" is part of what I would say is a VERY limiting proposition that is the impaction involved with a full ToE that is connected to a full model of REASON. Science NEEDS to be concerned with dissecting the hell out of the very instrument it's using to DO science. Anything "knowable" including one's own thought mechanics should be part of legit totality of "science," and that's what I'm vying for here.

Most definitions around the net concerning solipsism include the inability to know things outside of what's happening in the brain's "self-states" (assuming a non-dualistic starting premise is part of it, there is no "mind" here in a meta-sense). That is indeed what is going on if you are a discrete state processor that is using built-in programmed states from an outside source vs. "new states" coming in to create "new states." While there are discrete COMPONENTS (gates) that might temporarily yield a "new state", in the end, the final output string of states have NOTHING to do with each other to the machine. The simplest adder has flicked a bunch of switches. It is not aware that it did, or what they represent, and no amount of compounded circuitry changes this. The end game of a componental discrete bit-processing unit are discrete switches flicked or lightbulbs lit up, or pixels illuminated, or a servo activated.

It is DISCRETE all the way down.