electroBeam

Member
  • Content count

    948
  • Joined

  • Last visited

6 Followers

About electroBeam

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

4,127 profile views
  1. so in other words, it doesn't show you what you want, but shows you what you TRULY want. @kieranperez yes, of course they do.
  2. @CreamCat he is enthusiastic.. but about going to mars, which is some fantastical future event. After a while being enthusiastic about imagination gets tiring and boring, because you're getting excited over something made of thought. And even if you materialize it, the material is fun for a few days, or even weeks, but it gets boring aswell. And this process goes on forever. What's actually exciting about building a spaceship to mars is the process of expanding your mind beyond mundane existence, it has nothing to do with the engineering process at all. Engineering is 10% this, 90% banging your head against a wall because your rocket engine keeps thrusting backwards instead of forwards. The actual process of doing engineering is dry, cumbersome and myopic.
  3. I took leo's LP course a few months ago again. my lp statement was "to expand the possibilities of what man can do by inventing tools and techniques" which naturally points towards engineering. Yet ive been doing engineering all my life already. I gave it a second crack again recently, tried to like it or at least convince myself that I did, but now im burnt out again. I've discovered 1 massive issue with engineering: the happiness comes from a desire to see your ideas turn into reality. Yet this keeps you (or at least me) constantly miserable, because you're always looking forward to the future and never the present. I think ive finally discovered what I really enjoy about engineering. I enjoy expanding my thinking and awareness. I enjoy the feeling of mystery (moreso than discovering the mystery itself) and adventure and discovering completely different universes, worlds and paradigms. What LP could possibly fit this? I have a burning desire to try astral projection, dmt, lucid dreaming, anything to break my mundane existence and explore something really cool and awesome. Something more awesome than the stars. Could a scientist ever have a life like this? I find science to be highly mundane. You do discover things, but its no where near as awesome as what I need to quench my thirst. Any tips on how someone could make money off this or if someone has before?
  4. @Wisebaxter in my experience, spiral dynamics is a useful tool for developing your intellect in ways which develop and sophisticate your perspective, correct judgment and understanding of social aspects of society, but its not a magic bullet for teaching you how to master a specialized skill such as turning value into money. I think I resonate with your approach. I'm very idealistic, and because of that when I get an idea which really fascinates me I want to solve every problem through that idea. For example, I read this really cool book on shamanism. I loved the techniques in it so much that I tried to use them to cure every problem I had, including my low self esteem. Its just not gonna work. Unfortunately tools are tools, and they are suitable for some jobs and not others. Learning about and trying to embody orange stage personality traits will develop your perspective and understanding of life, but it will not miraculously turn you into a money making machine. Simply having a more accurate perspective in life, and better judgment will not make you a master at mathematics art or any other specialised domain, so why would spiral dynamics help you master money making? If you want to become a world class musician, the approach is to learn it and then practice. If you want to turn value into money, you got to learn it then practice. Also if you're having judgment problems, embodying orange isn't going to solve that. Like if you have an aunty you absolutely despise, seeing her more often isn't going to miraculously make you like her. I personally don't really know how to cure judgement problems apart from very intense awareness and focus on those judgments. If fact I would be inclined to say that if you have judgment issues its only going to be cured by mastering yellow. Judgments fall at the yellow stage, not orange. If you didn't understand something about orange (from a perspective/intellectual sense) then embodying it will allow you to understand it better, but its not going to cure your judgments, or turn you into a money making machine.
  5. @Wisebaxter the world doesn't revolve around spiral dynamics. Its a model, a fantastical depiction of a few swirls in the ocean of sociology which a few guys jumped on and made a language game about. And now we got hippies like you trying to see the whole personal development game through this language game. Just by reading your post I can't convey how wrong the spiral dynamics model is for solving your problem. This issue isn't that you're yellow or turquoise or coral or that you need to embody orange hahahaha. The problem is that you don't have money and this is causing you suffering. End of story. You may not like the scientific method because its too 'orange' for you, but if the scientific method got 1 thing right, its that beautiful idea of solving a problem through making it simpler. Chuck out all that spiral dynamics garbage and focus on the problem: you don't have enough money. You can easily solve that in many ways, but for you that means (again something simple) providing value in the most authentic, honest and deep way. What skills do you have? Painting, music, programming? What did you do all your life? And even if you have no practical skills, one thing that shines through in this post in your love spiral dynamics and wisdom. Use your life experience of being a hippy to give value to people: make books, blogs, opinion articles, how tos on spirituality, yoga classes, etc heck I don't know what's best for you, but i know it exists. Go find it!
  6. This isn't quite correct, while there may be some correlations between the behaviours of human beings and the properties of mathematical algorithms, and while it may be possible that an algorithm exists for some specific human behaviour, a human's behaviours are not generated or controlled by an algorithm strictly, but moreso by subjective, qualitative states. In other words, people fear death because of the 'feeling' and subjective qualia of death, not because of the laws of some possible algorithm. There is some sort of cause and effect going on (which is a property of algorithms) yet its states are qualia rather than algorithmic statements. There are some nuances here. Nuances that should be seriously considered. Its not possible to encapsulate the feeling of death into a symbol which can be used in an algorithm. I think this is obvious. We do not have a symbol which fully describes the feeling of fear of death. We cannot type into a computer if (feel_fear == true) { run } and expect the computer to know what feel_fear is, because we haven't defined it. Of course we could say if the algorithm is in a state where it could die, then feel fear (like in a video game), but notice that doing this doesn't fully encapsulate the feeling of fear. Human beings feel fear for many more reasons then just when they could die, they also feel fear with rejection from a relationship, etc. And notice that the amount of circumstances that a person could feel fear is infinite. Therefore we will always be infinitely away from fully defining what fear is for a computer. Even if we go the AI way of doing things, and show them scary pictures, and show them non scary pictures, the AI will never ever be 100% accurate, and we will never ever be able to show them an infinite amount of examples. On top of that we would need to do this for every single human feeling that is possible. So fearing that AI is going to take over the world like terminator is simply because people misunderstand what computers are, what human beings are and what psychology is. So as long as we are using algorithms, we will never get a computer which has the capabilities to perform as intelligently as a human being, because simply put, symbols are limited to how we define them, and we can never define a symbol as accurately (and for as many scenarios) as we would need. Next time you meditate, feel the feeling of fear, and notice how that feeling has infinite amount of information in it, and how defining that feeling in terms of if else statements (or alternatively NNs) is simply impossible. Or think about the amount of pictures you would need (or scenarios for a reinforcement learning algorithm) for an AI to understand all of that information which is contained in a subjective qualia like fear. Sure. My argument is that true AI is not possible with computers. Just because an AI generated a set of meaningful patterns on its own does not mean that the AI is in any way intelligent. It simply, strictly meant that it generated meaningful patterns which has solved a hard problem (a problem a human being finds hard to solve). Of course AI in the future has the potential to solve problems at any scale, it could be used to invent a superpowered death ray like the ones in starwars, or even thor's hammer, but still whatever this AI is, it will not exhibit the properties of a brain, but the properties of an engine. You put input in, and it will give you an output. It will generate some phenomena, whether that's a flying car, or a new more powerful nuclear bomb. Its important to be aware of this difference (that is the difference between a brain or an engine). The implications of this is, AI will give human beings dangerously great abilities to invent new things, or generate knowledge but the AI itself will not be an autonomous, self aware entity with a brain on its own and a capacity to do anything beyond what an engine does (put in input, get some predefined, limited, scoped output). The AI will only be dangerous because the people using it are deliberately (or undeliberately in some cases) trying to invent dangerous things. The danger will still be directly caused by humans only, not the AI itself. Nuclear power is a perfect example. The nuclear bomb killed thousands of people, yet it was because the Americans wanted to. In an undelibrate case, just turn to the 2 power plants that have exploded due to mis management or natural disasters. The power plant didn't explode because nuclear energy has a brain and mind and decided to intelligently try and kill humans, it happened because of natural physical laws. AI is no different, and will never be for as long as we are using computers in the conventional sense.
  7. There's also a point to raise though, that a computer is made of hardware which works completely differently to neurons. So the configuration of neurons may not be relevant to computers. neurons are completely different to transistors. Furthermore we also need to acknowledge that human beings (biologists) were the ones to observe neurons in the brain. All humans have biases and distort the truth to a certain extent (and science believe it or not distorts the truth massively) and when biologists/neurologists were theorising about the human brain, they didn't do it in the context of AI but in the context of neurological diseases and previous theories about biology. This perspective may not be useful to AI scientists. But furthermore, what I personally believe is, its impossible for AI to ever be true AI as long as its limited to computers. Computers work on ALGORITHMS. What ever a computer is doing, its doing it an algorithm. Of course the algorithms these days are highly complex, artificial neural networks especially, but whatever it is, its an ALGORITHM. The fundamental philosophy, limits and ideas which are inherent in mathematical algorithms, will be inherent in computer software. And if you study the fundamental mathematical philosophy of algorithms, you will be aware of the limits of them. These limits literally stamp out true AI. We may make a very powerful machine in the future, but it will always be a machine/engine, nothing more, nothing less. Computers are engines, not brains. And we need a wildly different hardware or software platform if we ever want to make a true brain. Actually when I was in freshman university, I built an ai algorithm to control a group/society in minecraft. I tried to get the people in minecraft to mimic the levels of spiral dynamics. Again, this is really where I first discovered my insight about the limits of an AI, the fundamental problem with trying to get the AI to spontaneously evolve, was that the AI had no capacity to invent creative insight. This is because everything in AI is predetermined (it runs off a script/algorithm) and for an AI to truly evolve through those levels, this running off a script thing wasn't good enough to cut it. We need a revolutionary computer system which isn't told what to do (AT ALL! I.E. NOT PROGRAMMED) but is rather influenced. It's thought process needs to begin spontaneously and end spontaneously. I see quantum computers making this opportunity possible. Its interesting that you talk about a totalitarian regime. Yes AI in the context of computers would be algorithmic, so therefore the system we live under would have to be of an algorithmic nature. Honestly, while this is a dominant opinion among AI professionals, I see it as myopic. They are totally blind to the fact that computers are just machines/engines. They aren't some cool new magic spell discovered through an ancient archaic tablet of a race far beyond our universe. Computers are powerful, and AI systems are too, but only in the context of pumping out mathematical patterns, whether that's patterns in images (object detection, image classification, etc) or full decision trees (like AI in video games). There is a massive thick wall to what AI can do, and that wont be solved until we leave this algorithmic perspective. Also we needs to understand that human beings are just pattern pumping engines, or engines for that matter at all. Human beings are actually quite hard to predict, and seem to produce spontaneous insights which are simply not possible to produce on a determined, algorithmic system.
  8. part of my job involves inventing AI algorithms. As part of my job, I discovered this paper that I thought I would share. A personal insight I have gained from reading this paper: human cognition and thought are not a product of neurons but a product of consciousness itself. Indeed the brain is inside consciousness rather than consciousness is inside the brain. Given that fact, psychological tools humans use are not useful (and derived from) the brain but rather are useful and are derived from consciousness. Therefore if we want to make AI smarter, build algorithms around psychological tools human beings use, like the ones in this paper. coolfuckenpaper.pdf
  9. @Aquarius maybe the reason why you feel this way is because you're completely unaware of what karma is? study it. If somebody acts angry at you, its because you made them angry. You are in no way obliged to make someone angry, its only because YOU did something to make them angry. Ramana Maharshi didn't make his father angry when talking about spirituality, Rumi didn't either, so didn't many others. You can say things in a way that makes people angry, and say things in a way which doesn't There's nothing wrong with making people angry, but don't blame that result on the form of the universe, they are angry because YOU made them angry. They would not be angry if YOU didn't make them angry, and you have the potential to do that. You can tell them the truth, and its ok if they get angry, the love and appreciation you will get from god will far outweigh the petty reactions of the people around you. Keep shining that light, and forget about the angry responses it yields. Heck Jesus took this approach so far that he died on the cross.
  10. @kieranperez what you're going through feels like its going to go on forever, that you will be hopeless and lost forever, that is for the next 60 years or so. But try and recognize that this is not a state that you will be in forever, but just a mental phase you are going through. These down periods are apart of life, they really are, not just on an individual level but a societal and planetary level aswell. The entire world was in world war 2 50 or so years ago, now its in a state where barely any wars are happening. And right now you are in an individual world war 2, but just like how world war 2 passed, so will this state that you are in. Life goes in cycles and that's ok, just recognize it and move on.
  11. @SBB4746 thanks! How long does it last? And how easily do you develop a tolerance to it? Like can you take 1 tab every working day and still not develop a tolerance to it?
  12. I'm not being a victim, and that's why im asking for advice here. Just saying 'try harder' doesn't solve the problem, you need a method or tool to solve it. Being a victim isn't the problem here. No, do you find nootropics to be quite effective with this sort of stuff? I think drugs can be effective, but I would like a more permanent, deeply rooted resolution first before deciding to rely on drugs.
  13. I'm finding that I'm having trouble being quite productive because I keep zoning out throughout my work. The problem I'm having isn't a result of fear, procrastination or anything like that, its bare bones mental fatigue. I try to push my brain to think about something and it just wont. Its sort of like pushing weights at the gym, but not being able to lift them because they are too heavy. I have tried visualizations, affirmations, self esteem shadow work. These techniques are not the right tool here. I need something else like brain training. What have you done to push your brain to the limits? Also I do suffer from chronic fatigue (both mental and physical) Doctors have no clue as to why I get it, and just blame it on depression. I personally think I have Hypothyroidism or sleep apnea (my symptoms resonate with those 2 problems the most).
  14. people who say this statement are actually correct. Mental states ARE physiological reactions. but what are physiological reactions? what is physiology? Its atoms bouncing around in a set order. What are atoms? Spherical balls What are Spherical balls? A mental construct as far as I'm concerned. (well whatever you believe they are, you cannot say they are material, because they are underneathe material/built ontop of material) What is a mental construct? A phenomena (we don't know of what, we can't say its a materialistic phenomena because this phenomena is underneathe materialism) Ahhhhh atoms are undefinable phenomena (or if you keep questioning, they are actually illusions). So materialism isn't WRONG (unlike what Leo and others here try to make out) its just a self consistent layer ontop of the truth. Its like a high level programming language. Python/java/c# etc are not wrong, they are just built on top of assembly lang.
  15. why not do both? Master a craft that you are passionate about?