Ero

I don't think it is going to be easy, but it's definitely possible. She has to be consistent with her appearances and solidify her position on important topics, such as foreign policy, inflation, immigration, etc. We don't yet know the platform she is running on outside of her strong abortion position.

That is just not true. I am referencing the Times and the American Enterprise Institute for the following facts: - China's debt to GDP ratio is 288% - 'Unless the Chinese government introduces major structural economic reforms that encourage domestic consumer spending, China could experience a Japanese-style lost economic decade' - China's economy is essentially a bubble - Goldman Sachs' estimation is that 50% of its GDP is from Real Estate (concrete without any value-add other than speculation for market growth) - follow up what happened to Evergrande. Currently more than 65 Million housing units are unoccupied. For reference, that is France's population. New construction is down 60%. - China's labor force is declining. Outside of that, let me just state that I am not arguing for the fact that the West is the sole reason countries are not developed. State corruption and ethnic violence is for example what I would put as the primary reason for the Balkan's underdevelopment, where I am personally from.

Through totalitarian rule responsible for the deaths of 30-45 Million people.

Having read "The Dark Alliance" by Gary Webb and "Chaos: Charles Manson, the CIA, and the Secret History of the Sixties", I find too many facts hard to overlook for its existence in the US. The 2013 NSA reveal by Edward Snowden is also evidence. In my formerly communist country, the transition of power was puppeteered by the equivalent of the KGB/CIA, such that all of the national resources remained in those close to the Deep State, so there it is not even under question.

I am sorry if that is how you felt. What I am trying to say is that it is hard to grasp your intellectual depth when this is the way you communicate. You pick and choose what different words mean, rather than explaining them to us, the ants in the "idiot realm", or maybe your depth is beyond my "lame" human state. Now, the sentence above was not meant to ironize, but rather show you that if we are to play the "gaslighting game", your use of such pejoratives far exceeds the "condescending tone" you presumed I had. I agree with your observation about science in its present form as epistemically limited due to its fundamentally materialistic ontology and metaphysics. But that doesn't change the fact that it is this "science" that will bring AI. And epistemically and metaphysically-revolutionary ideas will still have to be communicated through language. So, I would be interested to hear your thoughts on where these innovations would come from? From what I understood of your earlier posts, you think we have to transition away from "computational determinism", which correct me if I am wrong, but I understand as the philosophical position of finitism, i.e only computable objects exist. Your suggestions was for a non-deterministic substrate, which is something I agree with.

@nuwu I believe "AGI" in the way you are referring to it is worth contemplating/ researching, due to its expected revolutionary impact. From an expected (E[X] = P(X) x C) opportunity cost point of view, even at a 20 year timeline, your effort will most likely be worth it. What I was pointing to you is that without a consensus on what the various words and concepts mean, such as "AGI" itself, or without you clarifying what exactly the "implicit undisclosed contest" for your use of "autodual" is, it is very hard to communicate on such topics. AI is fundamentally a scientific research discipline, currently residing at the intersection of Mathematics, Statistics and Computer Science. If you have studied any of them in a formal manner, you may realize that all three of the disciplines inherently work with “strong formal mathematical objects”. Every AI model created in existence is a “mathematical object”. When you read a paper, say "Attention is all you need" or "Categorical Deep Learning is an Algebraic Theory of All Architectures", all the terms used in them, such as "computation", "graph", "automata" are terms with a precise meaning, such that whoever reads them and has the necessary background can without a problem understand the gist of it. If you personally begin researching, which if you are serious, would entail reading papers, you will encounter many such concepts. And if you want to understand and possibly contribute, your current mode of communication and approach to definitions as "subjective" would be rather unfruitful. P.S. Outside of the nerdy context, throwing around words like "mafia" without you actually having experienced what it means to lose a family member to organized crime is an example of a difference in the subjective meaning we have for that word. Just saying.

This is a good observation, one that I have contemplated myself. From an Absolute point of view, nothing really is changing, since all is just an expression of Consciousness, regardless of the content - something you experienced when you dissociate. On the other hand, if you engage in the dream, there seems to be a "phase transition" based on a particular configuration of symbols and/or images - one you can understand perfectly, another barely understand, or a third can make you feel totally lost. How does one traverse this "understanding"? You before and you after the realization - what changed? Your consciousness is now somehow more refined, more aware of the particular object/topic you are examining. There seems to be indeed some interplay happening between the perceived self and external no-self, one leading to self-realization of you as All.

@Evelyna I second what @Princess Arabia and @Bobby_2021 said. Thank you for sharing your time with us, please don't let this interaction sway your opinion of the forum. The people who cannot appreciate guidance and are only antagonizing do not stay for long.

There is a lot of toxicity and projection in your post. Having had the privilege of relationships with "pretty women", I believe this is mostly in your head. I have in fact never met a woman fitting your description above. It seems like you would benefit from actually going out and socializing rather than engaging in this red pill stuff.

Duolingo is actually surprisingly good. I speak 4 languages, the last of which has been Spanish. I spent last summer about hour thirty a day for 2 months on the app and got up to B1. It was about the same material I covered during my fall semester at uni, which is about 3 months, so I essentially didn't have to study. The only thing you might need additional practice for is speaking, just to get your thoughts flowing. Finding some people to chat with from time to time is definitely a must.

I am interested to hear what rules you are referring to. I am personally referring to a slightly larger frame of reference, similar to the one Leo uses when speaking of Survival as a fundamental mechanism of retaining a particular state of consciousness. When I choose to eat, I kill plants and animals. When I walk, I step on insects and fungi. When I live, part of society, I participate in the extermination of ecosystems and possibly even other societies, even if unwillingly. If we use the definition of hypocrisy as "a pretense of having a virtuous character, moral or religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess", I think you can agree that survival is necessarily a hypocritical endeavor, because whatever set of moral beliefs I choose, they will necessarily be hypocritical due to the nature of existing as an organism. I personally have no qualms with it and the extent to which I can control my effect on the world Btw, I don't believe @Evelyna was belittling you or being antagonizing. She didn't call you "stupid", a "sap", nor did she call herself a "social expert". I believe you can engage in a more civil manner, without being this combative. Of course, it is your own choice, but don't expect people to engage if this is the way you speak to others.

The term is definitely being overused for gaslighting, but there is truth to the statement. Survival entails hypocrisy. Of course, blanket statements, such as “everybody” remove the nuance of degrees. The hypocrisy of a narcissist vs. a conscious individual is vastly different.

"AGI" is not something being researched itself, since there is neither an agreed definition of what it actually means, nor are we actually close to it. Research in AI is currently conducted under the Deep Learning paradigm, so most of the work is done empirically by scaling existent models and seeing what comes out of it. Seconding what OBEler said, "metaphysics paralleling autodual fractal" is a word soup. "Autodual" is spanish for "self-dual", a mathematical term expressing an isomorphism between a mathematical object and its dual, something that does not apply to fractals.

The degrees of freedom as one scales up is what fascinates me greatly. My intuition is it wouldn't be a single "consciousness nob" that determines the access to the "source code" per the fact that there are people with human-level consciousness exercising greater control over the dream (Talbot's anecdotes) over say your personal experience of extreme consciousness but very little effect on the present dream. I imagine it something like a fractal tree, one that you can scale at the stem in a fashion similar to yours, or one can explore the many branches, each revealing a different metaphysical aspect : the illusion of time leading to premonitions and/or regressions, the illusion of distance - telepathy and so on. Either way, the higher you go, the more fluid the dream becomes to a point where you can no longer sustain its "frequency", having ascended too high (Mahasamadhi)

As a certified gym rat (previously callisthenics, currently powerlifting), I have found consistent exercise without much monitoring of my caloric intake as one of the most direct methods of increasing my wellbeing. I’m 5’10 205 lbs with about 8% body fat. I don’t do it for the girls or looks, but rather because that’s the only way to ground myself after 10-12h of math. Different body types gain different amounts of muscle, so you shouldn’t get hung up on that. From my experience being this buff does get looks, but if you can’t talk for shit with women it doesn’t really change anything.

Courtesy of xkcd. Mira Murati (current CTO of OpenAI - not fired after a year and something like the guy who wrote this 165 page treatise) recently said they don't have anything in development that is much ahead of what is already open sourced. I suggest you guys familiarize yourself with the position of Yann LeCun, a heavyweight compared to this kid, and you will see why the majority of people in the field are not taking this guy seriously.

I am perfectly aware. I have brought up Gödel's implications with other people from the math department, and I am yet to get a response different than "this is philosophy not math" or "this does not mean anything in the the field I care about" That said, I still think the effort of being precise in your language when speaking specifically about mathematics would benefit you for the aforementioned reasons. For the sake of intellectual integrity. One of the reasons I moved away from physics and into mathematics. My belief is that the current QM interpretation is in fact what is the bottleneck in fundamental physics. Again, I totally understand. My uni's Theoretical Physics department is all String Theory BS.

It seems like you are assuming a straw man of my position. Without trying to be combative, I challenge you to quote me where you seem to think I trivialize the implications of Gödel or that here are no larger deeper implications. All throughout this discussion I stressed the fact the metaphysical and epistemological ramifications of Gödel's theory align with your understanding of the limitations of formal systems of reasoning. Nowhere have I claimed math is the "ultimate tool" or that one can describe reality by evading paradoxes. I fundamentally use "Consciousness" as my ontology and not some physicalist or mathematical belief system. My position is that all formal systems, philosophies and such are not "territory" and can as such not "cover it", because Reality cannot be grasped through a "subset" of itself. No ultimate TOE can exist other than the statement that "All is Mind". Math is orthogonal to spirituality, similar to how "enlightenment" work does not substitute development on the spiral. However, that doesn't mean that all systems are created equal. If we were to have relied on Terence Howard's "math" we wouldn't have left the caves. The current iteration of math has allowed for all of our understanding of physics and computation. For example, the "AI" you changed your position on and have recently been examining more deeply is all math. Furthermore, I contest that the ability to construct literal intelligence out of silicon and electrons will fundamentally rely on all of contemporary mathematics and very possibly more than that. You cannot have an "AGI" system that equals human intelligence if you cannot embed mathematics, a human creation. That is not even mentioning the functorial relationship between an ML model and its "neuromanifold", i.e parametric space/ descriptive dimension. But it won't be Terence's or Salvijus's models that do that. Is math "incomplete" in the imprecise sense - of course. But that doesn't mean there isn't value in examining its dimensions. This is in fact a realization I had a year ago on 300 ug of LSD that pushed me deeper into math - that it in fact occurs in consciousness and that the mathematical realms are no less "real" than physical reality. (I was remembering Ramanujan's biography - an almost spiritual access to these realms without needing "proofs" - the formal logicist's ontology). In a similar fashion to how you explore consciousness, I examine these realms because of the clear value they have in building more refined understanding of our current dream - UFOs, intradimensional travel and communication, artifcial inteligence, synthetic life, genetic engineering - I contest that all these God-like technologies will only be possible through some future version of mathematics - post-rational, holistic and complex in ways we yet don't fathom. But that will not happen without rigour and technically-inclined individuals. I have watched all your videos on deconstructing science and paradoxes before I even started to study math more deeply. Nowhere was I being inflammatory, combative, or "playing gotcha". I was simply communicating to you that while people without a math background may not find issue with the less precise, you are possibly missing the opportunity to communicate your ideas to people that are more mathematically educated (I am again stressing the fact that I do not have resistance to your ideas due to you not phrasing them technically, as I said earlier). Similar to the pre- and post-fallacy, I believe that integrating the correct terminology and being careful about making precise statements when discussing these topics only would benefit you and the world by making your ideas more accessible, . It is creating unnecessary resistance to your ideas that I believe would benefit greatly the precise people that may conflate you with a woo-woo podcast armchair philosopher, the likes of Terence Howard. That is all. I respect the work you are doing and believe it is important for more people to listen to it.

@Leo Gura I am not disagreeing with any of your last statements, they are in fact non-controversial when it comes to people who study the foundations of math. Which is why I said earlier some future form of math will be about modelling the taxonomy of the various models themselves. You can for example choose which side of the paradox you want to examine (similar to Euclid’s 5th axiom depending on which you can switch between Euclidian, Spherical and Hyperbolic Geometry) in a yellow-stage approach to Math. The thing is, some of your statements were indeed imprecise, such as “all finite systems are inconsistent”, which you later refined to the more precise statement “any sufficiently complex system will have paradoxes” which is generally true. Again, my only pushback is not about your epistemological and metaphysical positions, with which I agree (logical formalism is not in fact the contemporary base of mathematics precisely because of Gödel), but rather that at times you state your position ambiguously when referring to terms with precise definitions. That’s all. I know you don’t like to get hanged up on stuff like that, which is why I removed my original post about this.

I think he is referring to Russel’s Paradox. It is true that in ZFC there is a distinction between “pure sets” and the type used in Russel’s paradox, which leads to inconsistency.

@zurew I actually wrote a statement that started as: " Leo, I don’t think zurew is being dismissive here. While from what I can tell you do have a deep understanding of the epistemological and philosophical limitations of math, you are indeed making imprecise statements that are generally not true. " (I referenced a few statements with corrections) "I think locking down on the terms and making sure you are more precise with your statements would help when speaking about math, because whilst I can overlook the ambiguity and understand the bigger point you are making, other people who have a stronger math background may get hanged up, which is something you can generally evade by just using the appropriate terms" But I decided to hide it, because tbh I am slightly tired of engaging on math topics in this forum, since it requires a certain level of care about the math itself which I don't think Leo himself is really interested in or many of the other people that engage in this discussion.

@BojackHorseman You are passing through the stage of nihilism (called also "dark night of the soul"). It occurs when your previous belief system is disbanded and you lose that sense of purpose. I don't know how long it has been for you, but it took about 6 months for me to get out of it when I was in a similar situation. I was in a state of "grey-ness", where I had no emotions and nothing seemed interesting. The way I got out of it is by starting to slowly engage with life in order to find a new purpose. Of course life is objectively "meaningless", because otherwise you wouldn't have the ability to choose what is meaningful for you. Two routines that helped me greatly were walks in nature and running/working out - both provably elevate your internal state. Through continuous contemplation and experience I was able to find a new intermediate purpose that later revealed itself as a life-long one. P.S - A lot of people still feel like zombies, hah. You are clearly higher consciousness than most, so it will inevitably feel this way. But you will eventually find people closer to you to match with.

Wait till you hear about the General Linear Group and its representation embeddings

I think Leo is just conflating the two terms (complete and consistent) which have precise meanings. From everything I have watched and read from him, I think he understands pretty well the limitations of math, precisely because of this very real existence of self-loops and references (the proof of Gödel is itself one)

You keep saying this but are yet to show us how would you readjust the axioms. If you are really that genuine about a civil debate, here you carry the burden of proof (have you not here the hebrew proverb “prove you don’t have a sister”?) Multiple people provided you with variety of demonstrations why you are wrong. I will remove myself from the discussion with this last example. From what I can tell your understanding of mathematics is only as far as arithmetic. So let me give you an example in geometry that you are clearly overlooking. Consider the unit circle S^1 defined in the Cartesian coordinate system through the equation x^2+y^2=1. You are aware of trigonometry, yes? You can redefine the xy coordinate systems into polar, whereas since the radius is one, you just have x =cos a and y=sin a. Now, have you heard of complex numbers? You can define that same circle using Euler’s identity e^(i pi a) = cos a + i sin a (this is the geometric meaning, there is also an algebraic one as the continuous Lie group U(1) that rests in the axioms mentioned earlier). By refusing to accept the existence of e^0=1 you are essentially saying that the circle is missing a point at (0,1). Yet i can clearly draw a circle “physically” without lifting the pen. How do you reconcile that?