I claim that BEING is the collection of states that comprise an information processor. What's your definition of BEING?

What level of n-bit serotonin dopamine epinephrine Betty Crocker combination affords me the ability to find “you” that presumably is experiencing all the states in totality? You’re experiencing the states, correct? So what state is experiencing the states? Switch 203998, 4926, or is there a minimum number required to define “you” separate from the other states generating the experience?

 

For the record, the telegraphing poles augmented with flip-flop capacity and their interconnections are what yield a Turing Machine, and positively nothing else. :=)

 

Here’s my proposal for a slight trajectory shift:

Sounds good, I'm game.

“Where did the continuous waves ultimately come from, stored in your circuitry as n-bit resolution discrete states, that allow you to reference yourself as a living contiguous unit in space (nature) by vibrating part 328R9 here, that—when the pressure waves it generates are picked up by your ears (microphones)—you convert back to digital states that you claim reflect those waves along with a time-stamp of when you did it? And why do you insist you have a choice to do this at this moment?”

I'll rewrite the questions so that you can check that I've understood them correctly.

Question A: I heard and processed a set of acoustic waves that allowed me to reference myself as a living organism; where did these waves come from?
Question B: What makes me think I have a choice to call myself a living organism?

To answer question A, the waves were in the air of the room, so it's logical to assume the waves were generated by something in the room. Without more detail, I can't say what generated the waves, but some sound source (maybe a loudspeaker) did it.

To answer question B, "choice" is a weird and ambiguous concept, so there's no simple answer. In the sense of "free will", I probably don't have any choice in any matter, though I suppose it's possible. In the sense of choice as a "decision", after processing a bunch of sets that represent my concepts of living organisms, I found a match with the bunch of sets that represent my concept of self.

 

Also, you invoke this thing called “nature”:

She obviously is the first order element outside your circuitry. She’s just another state or group of states to you, no?

Yup, "nature" is the catch-all word for all the states that I don't directly associate with my own. It's purely a conceptual distinction; my states are, of course, nature's states. This is no different than you associating your arm as distinct from your head, even though they're both part of "you".

Why do you know of her?

I formed a concept of her though many of my state associations.

Why do you insist you came from her, or that you even have a beginning or end in her?

Lots of evidence.

Where did she get her “waves” from to give you words that reflect her existence and things in her like planets?

Not sure.

 

Likewise! I welcome impassioned debate; the passion shows me that you deeply care, and that's inspiring to me. Plus, I don't bruise easily.

Similarly, if I seem exasperated or respond in some sh!tty tone, please know that I do so only because I, too, am passionate and take this conversation and the things you say seriously. Regardless of any differences in idealogical stances, I have great respect and admiration for you for exploring them openly.

Likewise!

 

What level of n-bit serotonin dopamine epinephrine Betty Crocker combination affords me the ability to find “you” that presumably is experiencing all the states in totality? You’re experiencing the states, correct? So what state is experiencing the states? Switch 203998, 4926, or is there a minimum number required to define “you” separate from the other states generating the experience?

The statement "You're experiencing the states" is loaded and not well-posed. I am the experience of the states. In other words, the concept of SELF is the superset of all the associations between all the various sensory, time-keeping, memory, etc. states that comprise this information processor. Fundamentally, it boils down to a feedback loop, the recognition that some states are referenced far more often -- are more familiar -- than others. That familiarity leads to a concept of SELF.

Have you ever woken up quickly from a long night's sleep? In that instant before consciousness first comes online, the senses are working -- you can tell you're in a room, though you don't know where exactly. Suddenly, you "remember" who and where you are, and consciousness takes over as if nothing had happened. "What time is it? Sh!t, I'm running late." etc.

That "remembering who you are" phenomenon is telling. It suggests that consciousness is a functionality that can be turned on and off. I contend that it precisely that, a function -- a set of associations -- in the brain. When we sleep, those circuits go offline. We're still very much information processors; our senses keep on working while we sleep. But without the requisite associations, we're unconscious.

You didn't answer the question; how are you defining BEING?

 

For the record, the telegraphing poles augmented with flip-flop capacity and their interconnections are what yield a Turing Machine, and positively nothing else. :=)

You, as a human, have no more computational power than any other Turing machine. So what does that say about a telegraph with some flip-flops?

 

The statement "You're experiencing the states" is loaded and not well-posed. I am the experience of the states. In other words, the concept of SELF is the superset of all the associations between all the various sensory, time-keeping, memory, etc. states that comprise this information processor. Fundamentally, it boils down to a feedback loop, the recognition that some states are referenced far more often -- are more familiar -- than others. That familiarity leads to a concept of SELF.

Have you ever woken up quickly from a long night's sleep? In that instant before consciousness first comes online, the senses are working -- you can tell you're in a room, though you don't know where exactly. Suddenly, you "remember" who and where you are, and consciousness takes over as if nothing had happened. "What time is it? Sh!t, I'm running late." etc.

That "remembering who you are" phenomenon is telling. It suggests that consciousness is a functionality that can be turned on and off. I contend that it precisely that, a function -- a set of associations -- in the brain. When we sleep, those circuits go offline. We're still very much information processors; our senses keep on working while we sleep. But without the requisite associations, we're unconscious.

So you’re saying as long as there’s a machine, the ghost-in-the-machine X-factor is the machine itself? That means a T-800 from the movie is no different, correct?

And in the case of the adder you built, a different “who” is experiencing that configuration simply as a function of electricity moving around, stored, shifted, etc? But is the transfer of states at a more macro level essential to your definition of being? There is no self or experience to a cable or bucket, correct?

You didn't answer the question; how are you defining BEING?

Was planning on it ...

I believe everything in this universe is componental other than forces, waves, the smallest of particles and the self. The self or BEING is the 5D soul and spirit (two different elements). Soul just for mankind, with spirit driving component. The experiences in this world are dopamine, serotonin, and related releases, calculated by vectors as a final magnitude and released into the 5D soul. The body and brain are calculators only. These beliefs are personally empirical.

While waves are superpositionable to create new waves, the fundamental constituent sine, square, sawtooth and triangle waves are not.

 

You, as a human, have no more computational power than any other Turing machine. So what does that say about a telegraph with some flip-flops?

From what I say above, the being is the 5D soul or spirit, and is localized to a physical 4D calculator. The cockroach has a soul, its brain (computer/calculator) is very simple. The bird, the dog, etc. are all different OSes. The purpose of the brain is to compute variable magnitudes of pleasure chemicals.

The telegraph poles with augmented Turing-hood could do the same thing, and beam a signal to a final latch 3000 miles away linked to a soul. The soul does not know the computer exists. The soul only knows pleasure or pain. The dog eats the excrement, doesn’t know the excrement is there or even that he’s eating it. He experiences the dopamine only. The physical reality-facing component to the dog is the body-brain interface. It can disappear as quick as a few skipped breaths.

 

Ok, after digesting all the outer-model discourse here—which essentially could go on forever, because it would seem there is a philosophically tinged answer for each outer-model question—I have finally arrived at what I feel is a kernel element we can now jump to for the next step in the model itself (as an extension of the new trajectory and soft reset).

Building directly on those axioms, lemma, and theorem QED’s you origami’d together, my question is this:

Would you agree that in any physical state processor, each discrete bit within the device is 1D?

 

That’s exactly my point... that specific note is “stored” as a wavelet in the parent wave, no?

How is the mind able to “access” or identify that one note and even mentally change just it?

First, it is not stored as a 'bad wavelet'. Sound is a single wave comprised of the literal addition and subtraction of countless other waves (primary, secondary, and harmonic to the nth degree) created by everything the ear is exposed to. As for how the mind does it, only one organization on Earth has that answer presently and that information is proprietary and not for public dissemination.

 

Can you elaborate? To my knowledge, the tech needed to accomplish what the op has asked does not yet exist.

You would be wrong. The 'tech' to do anything the mind does, in real-time, has been available for about 3 years.

 

First, it is not stored as a 'bad wavelet'. Sound is a single wave comprised of the literal addition and subtraction of countless other waves (primary, secondary, and harmonic to the nth degree) created by everything the ear is exposed to. As for how the mind does it, only one organization on Earth has that answer presently and that information is proprietary and not for public dissemination.

Hey Bob,

Thanks for the reply... though that topic train kinda left the station 25 pages ago, and a new one has arrived of a more existential bent. You’re welcome to join if you’d like.

Correct, though: the bad note is a constituent group of sub-waves (I dub “wavelings”) that may or may not be filterable depending on how embedded it is in the parent/root wave.

 

Found the Feynman quote.

In the Cornell Messenger Lectures he gave in 1964 (on Youtube) and also transcribed in The Character of Physical Law (page 157):

"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of spacetime is going to do?"

 

So you’re saying as long as there’s a machine, the ghost-in-the-machine X-factor is the machine itself? That means a T-800 from the movie is no different, correct?

Not quite. There must be some sufficient level of state complexity. A rock is a very simple (relatively speaking) state machine; it doesn't have the requisite structure to have self-awareness.

And in the case of the adder you built, a different “who” is experiencing that configuration simply as a function of electricity moving around, stored, shifted, etc? But is the transfer of states at a more macro level essential to your definition of being? There is no self or experience to a cable or bucket, correct?

The adder is also a very simple state machine and, by design, has only the most basic level of self-awareness. Cables and buckets are more like rocks.

I believe everything in this universe is componental other than forces, waves, the smallest of particles and the self. The self or BEING is the 5D soul and spirit (two different elements). Soul just for mankind, with spirit driving component.

So humanity is ontologically privileged in the universe? All the evidence points to human existence as an extremely recent blip in the history of the universe. The universe was here long, long, long before us, so why should we think that we're an elemental part of it, as foundational as "forces, waves, and the smallest of particles"? Isn't this just the same ol' anthropocentric wishful thinking that religions dole out?

The experiences in this world are dopamine, serotonin, and related releases, calculated by vectors as a final magnitude and released into the 5D soul. The body and brain are calculators only. These beliefs are personally empirical.

Is the "soul" physical? Neurotransmitters are physical chemicals, nothing more than particular arrangements of molecules. Thus, the "soul" must be physical in order to be affected by the chemicals. And if the soul is physical, then we can in principle identify and measure it. Where do we find it?

While waves are superpositionable to create new waves, the fundamental constituent sine, square, sawtooth and triangle waves are not.

Superpositions of sine waves are exactly how square, sawtooth, and triangle waves are defined. Note that all of these, including sines, are mathematical objects; none of these waves can have physical existence. A sine wave is defined for all time; anything shorter than that results in a truncated sine wave, which necessarily includes more than a single frequency (which is the characteristic property of sines). Ironically, our mathematical description of a physical (truncated) sine wave is a superposition of true sines (each of which doesn't have physical existence).

Trying to introduce mathematical objects into an ontology is tricky business. Caveat oscillator.

 

Would you agree that in any physical state processor, each discrete bit within the device is 1D?

Yup. A binary state has one degree of freedom: up/down, on/off, etc.

BTW, you don't have to specify "discrete" when you mention bits. By definition, a bit (or a trit, or a quat, etc.) must be discrete.

 

Not quite. There must be some sufficient level of state complexity. A rock is a very simple (relatively speaking) state machine; it doesn't have the requisite structure to have self-awareness.

There’s therefore a componental element of “you.” And so I want to know which state represents the “self” to you, since no one gate or wire seems to care? Why does n-complexity yield an experiential “self?” It is proven the chemicals of dopamine, serotonin, etc. are required to experience the self to some degree. So where is this happening in the C-64? Load “self”,8,1? You say as long as there’s the ability for a certain n number of flip flops to register the presence of voltage or other flip flops, there’s a “you?” Where is this inference justified?

The adder is also a very simple state machine and, by design, has only the most basic level of self-awareness. Cables and buckets are more like rocks.

But no one discrete bit or state cares any more than a rock or bucket if it’s off or on. So a “cloud” of them means they begin to?

So humanity is ontologically privileged in the universe? All the evidence points to human existence as an extremely recent blip in the history of the universe. The universe was here long, long, long before us, so why should we think that we're an elemental part of it, as foundational as "forces, waves, and the smallest of particles"? Isn't this just the same ol' anthropocentric wishful thinking that religions dole out?

Nope, computational complexity does not speak to privilege. I put man in the same territory as a dog or cat (some as tarantulas, cockroaches or bats). Man is basically a talking dog on his hind legs that doesn’t know he’s talking. He is a 3D cartoon in a derivative universe, a sim character. No diff than Scooby Doo, but has a soul to experience magnitudes of dopamine, etc. Every living creature on the earth would have a soul no different than man.

Is the "soul" physical? Neurotransmitters are physical chemicals, nothing more than particular arrangements of molecules. Thus, the "soul" must be physical in order to be affected by the chemicals. And if the soul is physical, then we can in principle identify and measure it. Where do we find it?

Physical is a weird term. Technically metaphysical objects would be a “physical” we perhaps can’t measure. I think “physical” means “existentially observable” in the end. If forces exist, a force has no observational properties. Are they physical? What about fields? If it’s knowable, it’s physical “somewhere.” We have to asymptotically triangulate it.

Superpositions of sine waves are exactly how square, sawtooth, and triangle waves are defined. Note that all of these, including sines, are mathematical objects; none of these waves can have physical existence. A sine wave is defined for all time; anything shorter than that results in a truncated sine wave, which necessarily includes more than a single frequency (which is the characteristic property of sines). Ironically, our mathematical description of a physical (truncated) sine wave is a superposition of true sines (each of which doesn't have physical existence).

100% believe mathematical objects have a “physical existence,” just 5D continuous origin. Pan to page 34 of our ToE here.

Trying to introduce mathematical objects into an ontology is tricky business. Caveat oscillator.

Oh, but we shall! Have _FAITH! Let us prevail!

 

Found the Feynman quote.

In the Cornell Messenger Lectures he gave in 1964 (on Youtube) and also transcribed in The Character of Physical Law (page 157):

"It always bothers me that, according to the laws as we understand them today, it takes a computing machine an infinite number of logical operations to figure out what goes on in no matter how tiny a region of space and no matter how tiny a region of time. How can all that be going on in that tiny space? Why should it take an infinite amount of logic to figure out what one tiny piece of spacetime is going to do?"

Glad you found it. As suspected, Feynman was saying the opposite of what you claimed. Let me explain.

In the language of mathematics, physical laws are written as sets of differential equations. Here's an example of a famous law of motion: \[ \frac{d^2x}{dt^2} - \frac{1}{m} F(x) = 0 \] This is Newton's second law of motion (F = ma) in standard form; the equation constrains the possible physics of any object in motion. This is incredibly useful because, out of the infinite number of possible trajectories a moving object can have, this equation tells us the actual trajectory. Huzzah!

But, taken literally, the differential equation describes the object's motion at every single instant of time. If we were to ask a computer to use this equation to calculate the path of a baseball, it would require an infinite number of calculations just in the first trillionth of a second!

What Feynman was actually saying in his quote is that he believes in simple universal laws. Specifically, he was expounding on his belief that any representation of a physical law that requires enumerating everything at every instant is vast overkill. Note that he was not saying that physical laws require infinite equations or any such thing. He was simply bemoaning the over-specificity of the particular way we express physical laws.

 

Yup. A binary state has one degree of freedom: up/down, on/off, etc.

BTW, you don't have to specify "discrete" when you mention bits. By definition, a bit (or a trit, or a quat, etc.) must be discrete.

Yes, I’m aware that’s redundant—like “cease and desist.” I want it extra loud at times for ”the people in the back” because that element is sublimely important as the primus distinctus elementus en constrast to the 5D.

Now then... beware a frothing DEBKAC in the following thought experiment:

Invoke a mental picture of any tissue box in your home. A very specific one so it doesn’t glitch frames.

Walk “yourself” as a human form around it so that you are seeing each side of it.

Now invoke Word-wave “3D cube” to define it (or oblong cube).

IF the box is not 3D per your own definition, and you are not 3D per your own definition, and you can’t pinpoint either you or the box in your 1D brain, then, quite simply:

You don’t exist and neither does the box. QED.

(Because no 1D state processor has any above-1D forms in it.)

 

Glad you found it. As suspected, Feynman was saying the opposite of what you claimed. Let me explain.

In the language of mathematics, physical laws are written as sets of differential equations. Here's an example of a famous law of motion: \[ \frac{d^2x}{dt^2} - \frac{1}{m} F(x) = 0 \] This is Newton's second law of motion (F = ma) in standard form; the equation constrains the possible physics of any object in motion. This is incredibly useful because, out of the infinite number of possible trajectories a moving object can have, this equation tells us the actual trajectory. Huzzah!

But, taken literally, the differential equation describes the object's motion at every single instant of time. If we were to ask a computer to use this equation to calculate the path of a baseball, it would require an infinite number of calculations just in the first trillionth of a second!

What Feynman was actually saying in his quote is that he believes in simple universal laws. Specifically, he was expounding on his belief that any representation of a physical law that requires enumerating everything at every instant is vast overkill. Note that he was not saying that physical laws require infinite equations or any such thing. He was simply bemoaning the over-specificity of the particular way we express physical laws.

That’s a good take, but that’s... a take.

Someone else echoed my thoughts exactly on it:

“Feynman could be referring to several different things here, but I think most of them boil down to the following point: The currently accepted theories all assume some sort of spacetime continuum or otherwise continuously defined objects. Of course, a computer 'thinks' in terms of bits, and therefore does not deal with continuum variables or any other continuous objects. It therefore needs to 'chop things up', i.e. discretize.

However, this introduces some error, since it tries to model something continuous as something discrete. In order to perfectly simulate the universe cannot cut any corners, so we have to get a perfect approximation, which means the exact solution: We have to recover continuous objects. But this is not possible with any finite discretization. Note that your apparent impression that the Planck length & time preclude the existence of smaller time/space-intervals is incorrect. The Planck units are not the smallest or largest possible things. For instance, the Planck mass is about 10^-5 grams! One different interpretation of Feynman's statement was given by Jerry Schirmer in the comments: In quantum field theory, the vacuum is not what one intuitively might think it is: There are so-called vacuum fluctuations. These can be visualized using Feynman diagrams, without any 'external lines': Bubble diagrams! Since there are infinitely many such diagrams, every tiny little piece of the vacuum has infinitely much going on inside, making it impossible to simulate using any finite algorithm.”

https://physics.stackexchange.com/q...ite-amount-of-logic-for-one-tiny-bit-of-space