Kolya on 25/6/2020 at 12:57
Quote Posted by Marecki
yes, I have in fact had a deep, hard look at myself on several occasions [...]. I still wish I hadn't
If ever asked to look at yourself, don't.
~Bob Dylan
Tocky on 25/6/2020 at 13:09
Read my latest book- I'm okay: The rest of you just suck.
demagogue on 25/6/2020 at 13:21
Quote Posted by raph
I was so confused at first because in my field, NLP is short for Natural Language Processing...
(
https://www.ttlg.com/forums/showthread.php?t=134853&page=106&p=2435068&viewfull=1#post2435068) Same.
I guess I can elaborate for old Nick's sake.
Quote Posted by Kolya
I hope you're taking the piss, dema because "cyberrealism" sounds like "I'm 14 and this is deep". [...] Good luck with your top down cultural movement.
First thanks for the luck. (And it's one "r", cyberealism, but that's ... not really important.)
Yes, the version I gave was the version for 14 year olds. That's probably fair to say.
This is a gamer forum so, you know, I didn't want to over-do it.
A more accurate version would be ... well let's just say the four core neurophysiology textbooks I want to capture are 1200, 1100, 700, and 600 pages, respectively. (That's 3,600 pages, and that's the short version! Each chapter averages cites to 50+ articles apiece.) So it doesn't really lend itself to bumper sticker treatment. So in that respect, any bumper sticker treatment is taking the piss whatever it says, I won't disagree with you there.
To respond to a few specific things though:
* The punchline isn't that we're code per se, it's what the code is. It's definitely not psychobabble NLP! More like my old stomping ground of (
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computational_neuroscience) computational neuroscience, which I first studied in the '90s.
* I don't want to mechanize humans. If anything, it'd look more like humanizing (the right kind of) machines to me. I've always said if a theory doesn't capture everything that's mystical and magical about a human soul, it's not there yet. But I do think it's important that humans are a natural part of this universe. I don't like the idea that some part of us is floating in 5th dimension ectoplasm, as if we're aliens to this universe and not responsible for what we do here. To me that implies a computational part (but I don't like the term mechanical either).
* And as for humanizing machines, I'm in the camp that thinks human-like AI are right around the corner, just as a function of processing power. And we should prepare ourselves for what they may have to say.
But anyway, if you allow me a slightly better shot at it (I said from the start I'm not sure the best way to package this stuff):
So the parietal lobe crunches the world into neural maps of a narrative flow which carry possibilities of action in them that the executive part latches on to, which is to say in human terms language and the self blossom out of people's everyday experiences with the world. We yearn to interact, with the world and with each other, and if that yearning is given the ability to organize itself, with a little bootstrap help from mommy and daddy, it self-organizes into language, and then through language we recognize meaning in ourselves and our world, what they are, but also what they're not but could be. And that same yearning pushes us to try to re-make them into what we hope they could be. And then love and hate, ebullience and grief, vocation and politics happen. Maybe that's a little better.
Kolya on 25/6/2020 at 13:48
But I do think it's important that humans are a natural part of this universe. [...] To me that implies a computational part
Computation doesn't seem to follow out of existing in the natural world. Care to elaborate?
And as for humanizing machines, I'm in the camp that thinks human-like AI are right around the corner
I'm in the other camp, that thinks human-like AI requires human-like experiences which require a human-like body, which is very far off, if at all being researched.
So the parietal lobe crunches the world into neural maps of a narrative flow which carry possibilities of action in them that the executive part latches on to, which is to say in human terms language and the self blossom out of people's everyday experiences with the world. We yearn to interact, with the world and with each other, and if that yearning is given the ability to organize itself, with a little bootstrap help from mommy and daddy, it self-organizes into language, and then through language we recognize meaning in ourselves and our world, what they are, but also what they're not but could be. And that same yearning pushes us to try to re-make them into what we hope they could be. And then love and hate, ebullience and grief, vocation and politics happen.
This possibly seems to miss the aforementioned physicality of the human experience as well. It certainly lacks the revelatory part that you vaguely mentioned. How does this give you an army? :D
Gray on 25/6/2020 at 18:23
This thread didn't exactly go in the direction I expected, but it got us discussing things I hadn't thought of in a long, long time, so I suppose it's served its main purpose: stuff to distract us while we're all stuck indoors with too much time on our hands.
I'm gonna have to go back and read a few things back, I don't think I've ever taken a Myers-Briggs test. But I have taken a Voigt-Kampff test.
Gryzemuis on 25/6/2020 at 19:55
Quote Posted by Gray
But I have taken a Voigt-Kampff test.
Did you pass ?
"My mother ? Let me tell you about my mother !!"
Kolya on 25/6/2020 at 23:06
Quote:
Fred Maddden, in Jabberwocky (Summer/Autumn 1988), calls attention to a chapter titled "Popular Follies of Great Cities" in Charles Mackay's classic work,
Extraordinary Delusions And The Madness Of Crowds (1841). Mackay tells of various catch phrases which sprang up suddenly in London. One such phrase was "Who are you," spoken with emphasis on the first and last words. It appeared suddenly, "like a mushroom . . . One day it was unheard, unknown, uninvented; the next day it pervaded London. . . . Every new comer into an alehouse tap room was asked unceremoniously 'Who are you?'"
In "Who Are You: A Reply" (Jabberwocky, Winter/Spring 1990), John Clark points out that Carroll owned Mackay's book and probably heard the question shouted at him when it was a short lived London rage.
Inline Image:
https://i.imgur.com/Dxi9yOA.jpg
Gray on 25/6/2020 at 23:50
Quote Posted by Gryzemuis
Did you pass ?
Have I been 'retired' yet?
qolelis on 26/6/2020 at 01:58
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Say, wasn't it Arthur C. Clarke that said that?
Exactly, someone has already said that as well. I conveniently forgot to give credit. Part of why I stopped writing in general was realizing I had nothing to say, nothing new to add to anything. I'm trying to get past that, though. Maybe some things are worth repeating!? Maybe I should stop overthinking and just say shit...
Quote:
I'm just impressed that the old adage of it taking 10 times more work to disprove bullshit than to come up with it keeps being true. I would think someone questioning a fact would be interested enough to independently verify it themselves, but hey, what do I know.
I think the mistake you made was just posting a link to a relatively long article, in which only a small part was relevant to what you wanted to prove, expected everyone to not have anything else on their plate, and then got a little mad that noöne read it. A perhaps more efficient approach could have been to also quote the small part you especially meant for us to read (along with posting the link for those who want to read more)!? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Anyway, the mystery is solved now, so thanks.
On the subject of what the thread was originally about:
I am filtered me and I am unfiltered me. While I feel it's better to
show you who I am instead of trying to
tell you who I am -- which would probably just lead to me trying to come off as better than I am -- although that would mean showing the actual unfiltered me, who is the one who gets all the fun and excitement, but also gets filtered me in trouble -- and also takes a lot longer, maybe even a whole lifetime something something Kirkegaard oh yeah. Filtered me is boring as all those fucks you grow in your empty fields yo. Yeah, I should just say shit...
demagogue on 26/6/2020 at 03:24
Quote Posted by Kolya
Computation doesn't seem to follow out of existing in the natural world. Care to elaborate?
[...]
I'm in the other camp, that thinks human-like AI requires human-like experiences which require a human-like body, which is very far off, if at all being researched.
[...]
This possibly seems to miss the aforementioned physicality of the human experience as well. It certainly lacks the revelatory part that you vaguely mentioned. How does this give you an army? :D
Alright, at a minimum, if humans exist in the natural world, they are products of natural forces. Once a person has conceded that, the rest is just packaging, no?
There are neural models that aren't computational. They tend to be dated now, and I'm more impressed with the computational ones. But anyway it's an empirical question, so there's no sense in rooting for one over the other because of what we want.
In a weak sense, though, I think any simulation of any physical system is computational, so that's why I phrased it that way. Actually the closest analogy to a brain I've seen around is modular synths with patch cables, but that's probably for another post.
As for the human body part, my starting point, what the parietal lobe is up to, is exactly embodiment. Everything floats on the modalities of a person experiencing and acting in the world. So having a body in the world is front and center. I mean the bot I'm making is an avatar walking around in a simulated world, but when his "feet" "touch" "the ground", or in that video of the mouth, when the "tongue" "touches" the "roof of the mouth", it gives haptic feedback. The design has to let that guy feels himself embodied in that world. So I completely agree with you on that part.
Just on the last part, don't underestimate the power and seduction of human yearning.
But my gig is an invitation not a demand, anyway. People that get it or are curious can come along for the ride, and people that don't are under no obligation to care.
I think I've got something here, and I see myself as something of a ring leader for it, if that's some insight into who I am.