Wes, now I promised that if the little worm ever showed its ugly black head in this apple again I'd keep the 'scathing' wit to a fucking sentence, at least. And so-
Fountainboy:
"I'm a trifle deaf in this ear. Speak a little louder next time".
Some Wonka magic for the ghetto child.
===========================================
Now, where were we?
Wesmoron: (sorry...couldn't resist, it was bloody funny)
Where is that loopy? You should study it for months. You'll see that it's merely a re-statement of that which you'd said "suh-weeeet" to, but clarified somewhat. Here is is again:
"Reason is the real-time implementation of awareness in a manner that attempts to integrate the object(s) of focus in one's current awareness into a pre-existing inter-relationship of concepts in one's mind in a manner that it is consistent with those relationships, thus adding / altering the structure itself continuously and cumulatively."
The main difference was in the first one I failed to really state how it relates to itself clearly. Eh, really I just expounded the notions of comprehension and previous reasoning. Same sentence in essence
Right on. A psychological bridge? That's the concept I've detailed out also, perhaps better perhaps not, but all that's important here is that we agree at least this much.
In more ways that one, certainly. For some odd reason when all of this first occured to me I was standing on a neighbors front porch talking about this kind of stuff and I saw it as an upside-down christmas tree shape of conceptual relationships. When you're a child it's very narrow and intense, as you age, stuff stacks upon what is already there, forming relationships.. binding intself to itself, reshaping itself in the process. Regardless that's just loopy crap. Pardon. I've explained it all much better in this thread and subjective geometry.
Intersting. But how about a cone? And the starting point is on the
other side, not the pointy one. At the beginning, nothing is intense. The slab is wide, general and impersonal.
Slab by slab the stacking goes on in the habit of only learning the lingo and labeling. Its much later that labels shift to ephemara- concepts get blurry because the intensity tends to blind.
But its always narrow, no?
If you cut down a cone horizontally down to the atomic level, it still maintains its coneshape, no?
There's no point in which it ever stops being a cone.
The method or slab is the same thing in all stages but now it becomes a matter of the practioner thinking its
something else, something intensely 'different' because of the size. But its still a cone.
Yeah sure, I use it at work to a degree. Mostly Database programming in Visual Basic and such. Scripting, etc. Nothing terribly fancy. There is one tough nut here though that I have yet to crack. It's too complicated and I can't seem to keep it all in my head at the same time. I can look at it and see the pieces but when I try to see the whole thing pieces fade away
Same here. I usually drive past an ex's house and throw a fucking brick through his window when my programs won't work.
And nothing fancy here either....from
school anyway. All the cool stuff I glean from nerdy teen boys with way too much time on their wet, sticky hands.
Here's how fucked up I am though. I'm pretty damned confident if I had the willing participation of the most brilliant programmers in the world, a few philosophers and math people and such... along with 10-20 years and unlimited resources during that period, I'm almost positive I could create a conscious programmatic entity.
Caca.
Wait a sec.....perhaps. 12 pages into this deathbeast of a thread I still believe that the only means for an AI to gain a concept of an 'other' self is through a guiding type of mental dialogue. A mental voice. If you could only sit him down with a philosopher that will fuck his brain with a method inducing it to talk to itself in isolation, he'd be aware. He'd be another creature thinking in terms of 'soul'.
Or not even talking to itself. Allow him an invisible segueway to fall into and parallel whatever he's doing, something trilling superimposed to everthing that he's doing. And then if you can tweak this detour, or whatever you'd like to call it, or 'focus it' down with its own language he'd come around to asking upon himself.
Language does what nothing else in this world can do and that's allowing its speaker to
go in and think something's there when most possibly nothing is there at all.
You seem to be thinking something like this but with variety:
Most lurk just outside the reach of focus, as with your eyes in a sense. To acheive a "focus" you really have a "focal point" which means there must be a "lense".
Right....but then
So this "lense" is your mood mixed with your general attitude (the way you've learned to hold the "shape" of your consciousness throughout that internal conceptual inter-relationship) focuses on single point in the multitude of levels of awareness just outside of focus. It shifts around via momentum, will or automated sub-processes which are basically characteristic of the "shape" of the inter-relationships in your mind, instincts and emotions
Fucking loopy, but I got it I think. Why is this lense a mixture of 'mood' and 'attitude'? Regardles of mood, attitude, environment, and setting the mind goes on doing what it does, no? And whether its a preschooler or an adult its still the same thing. The only thing distinguishing both is the idea of 'depth'.
I'm saying this 'lense' that can hone in and sharpen the image, according to you,
is language. You don't like that becuae it implies my use of the word 'sham'.
I've thought about it. This 'shape' that you're talking about sounds even more 'shammy' than my idea of grinding it all down to language.
At the focus, will comes to play. The focus now is my internal voice
Another bummer. I say there is will with or without focus. The internal voice is more like a moderator suggesting the
right to
choice in the will of anything- itself or something not itself.
You're going to have to inject this into a programmed robot in order for it to think in terms of "ego". That's why this:
Worse, it's not just continuous but it is continious in relationships of "experiences" which are abstracted into concepts and related to one another. I have not been able to figure out how to approach programming an "experience" since it is a fucking circular concept with the end resultant of the focus as mentioned before. It gets my head really reeling sometimes.
........is impossible.
Okay now you may curse me for being a loopy fuckard.
A curse on your fat ass for being a loopy fuckard.
Kidding.
Would I bore you with what I found on Autistc children and wild children?
:: holding a baton::
