Leo is wrong about random mutation

[Scholar]

9 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Scholar Ok, so if you are all using the same definition, why does Leo and Bernardo conclude that randomness is just our failure to predict reality while you don't? Maybe I am a bit dense today

I already described all of this, in fact I am described why it is necessary for Creation itself. I described to you the very nature of creation, creativity and evolution.

 

Re-read my posts carefully, and maybe try to summarize what I said. You should definitely gather from my posts why exactly I think that randomness is necessary for Creativity.

 

Kastrup is making a point about physicality. My point, really, would stand even if you could predict "noise", it wouldn't matter, as long as functionally the noise would lead to the exploration of all possibilities within an infinite system. But, actual randomness does exist. It is freedom, it is Free Will. Kastrup cannot fathom this possibility because he is a rationalist.

In fact, the point is not even that you need to explore all possibilities within an infinite system, rather, the more you do explore, the more complexity you can pull out of it, while on the other hand it will take longer to actually pull those complexities out. (this is why evolution takes time)

Leo disagrees with this because he is scared of physicalism, so anything that sounds like it he will reject. He has become very dualistic in that way.

 

 

So, to simplify it, I say randomness exists because complexity exists. I claim without randomness, complexity could not possibly occur, because complexity is manifested through a random exploration of the infinite and an overarching selective process for function.

I think that is what imagination, creativity, creation, is.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

So, to simplify it, I say randomness exists because complexity exists. I claim without randomness, complexity could not possibly occur, because complexity is manifested through a random exploration of the infinite and an overarching selective process for function.

I think that is what imagination, creativity, creation, is.

That's what I thought earlier (I didn't post it though), that you were somehow conflating randomness with complexity. That's what Leo means by infinite intelligence (infinite complexity). Hence, I don't see why you should disagree on a substantial level.

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

complexity is manifested through a random exploration of the infinite and an overarching selective process for function.

This is meaningless to me.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

You can observe this in your own cognitive process. You generate genuine, novel ideas when not by actually somehow costructing them from the ground up, rather, you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea. That's tuning into the process I am describing, you tune into randomness, given certain restrictions due to the nature of your mind, and somehow the idea is captured or crystalized once it "fits" your intention.

This is what is happening. And the interesting thing will be, that we will be able to observe all of this in the brain. Because, infinity is accessed through the very principles of math itself. There is no magical source that somehow injects itself into the process. No, the mathematical process, or meta-process, is what the access to infinity looks like.

 

 

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

That's what I thought earlier (I didn't post it though), that you were somehow conflating randomness with complexity. That's what Leo means by infinite intelligence (infinite complexity). Hence, I don't see why you should disagree on a substantial level.

We don't disagree about infinity, we disagree about the mechanism of manifestation, or creativity. It's a subtle, nuanced disagreement, but it makes all the difference.

 

4 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

This seems meaningless to me.

Which just means you don't understand what I am saying, but if you don't have clarifying questions I can't help you. I simplified my point there, by the way, so you could go back and read my posts where I explained it in depth.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

17 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You can observe this in your own cognitive process. You generate genuine, novel ideas when not by actually somehow costructing them from the ground up, rather, you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea.

I don't see why that necessarily has to be random. Why can't it follow a pattern that you're simply unaware of?

[Scholar]

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I don't see why that necessarily has to be random. Why can't it follow a pattern that you're simply unaware of?

Because the way I described it is the only way you can pull something out of nothingness/infinity.

 

I think you still don't quite understand the function randomness has in this. Randomness is the only way to actually completely explore or come into contact with infinity.

[Carl-Richard]

5 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Because the way I described it is the only way you can pull something out of nothingness/infinity.

I'm not convinced, but if you say so.

 

7 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I think you still don't quite understand the function randomness has in this. Randomness is the only way to actually completely explore or come into contact with infinity.

If you say so.

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

I'm not convinced, but if you say so.

 

If you say so.

You are so stubborn.

 

If you want to continue, give me your summary of what you think I am saying, and why I am saying the things I am saying. In the meantime, I will try to think of some sort of analogy or metaphor that will maybe illustrate the point I am making.

[Carl-Richard]

57 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Kastrup is making a point about physicality.

Btw, he is not. His observation applies to your cognitive example.

[Scholar]

11 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Btw, he is not. His observation applies to your cognitive example.

I want to clarify what I mean by that:

He means true randomness does not exists as some sort of, actual physical process. My point is that, functional random noise can still exist. As long as it mathematically basically looks like noise, it will work, because what matters is what happens in the mathematical relationships of things, not in the physical processes or laws of nature.

You could do this with dice rolling, which is not actually random, in a physical sense, but it would work all the same.

 

It merely has be the equivalent of statistical noise, basically.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[zurew]

44 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You can observe this in your own cognitive process. You generate genuine, novel ideas when not by actually somehow constructing them from the ground up, rather, you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea. That's tuning into the process I am describing, you tune into randomness, given certain restrictions due to the nature of your mind, and somehow the idea is captured or crystalized once it "fits" your intention.

I don't see either how couldn't this be based on a certain pattern rather than based on randomness. Why couldn't you receive new/novel ideas based on a pattern rather than based on randomness? Using your words: " given certain restrictions due to the nature of your mind " - those restrictions could outline the pattern by which you will receive those ideas, so why is randomness necessary there?

More specifically why cant this: " you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea" happen based on a pattern rather than based on randomness?

I could rephrase my question this way: What is the contradiction in receiving new/novel ideas based on a pattern rather than based on randomness?

[Scholar]

1 minute ago, zurew said:

I don't see either how couldn't this be based on a certain pattern rather than based on randomness. Why couldn't you receive new/novel ideas based on a pattern rather than based on randomness? Using your words: " given certain restrictions due to the nature of your mind " - those restrictions could outline the pattern by which you will receive those ideas, so why is randomness necessary there?

More specifically why cant this: " you create an openness within your mind and a certain intention to "receive" an idea" happen based on a pattern rather than based on randomness?

I could rephrase my question this way: What is the contradiction in receiving new/novel ideas based on a pattern rather than based on randomness?

What is a pattern?

[zurew]

6 minutes ago, Scholar said:

What is a pattern?

My understanding is that pattern = following a set of rules.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

what matters is what happens in the mathematical relationships of things, not in the physical processes or laws of nature.

I just don't understand.

 

1 hour ago, Scholar said:

What is a pattern?

You should know as it's included in the common definition of randomness that you provided.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

Just now, zurew said:

My understanding is that pattern = following a set of rules.

If you follow a set of rules, you will be restricted to whatever the outcome of that set of rules is. You would just, over and over again, get the same outcomes. The more degrees of freedom you have, the more potential for novel information there is. How could this not be the case?

Patterns are necessarily stable, meaning the outcomes will also be stable. Animal cognition, and most of human cognition, does function this way. But there are some degrees of freedom, even in animal cognition, and more so in human cognition.

 

My brain is getting foggy so I can't think as clearly any longer, I will have to illustrate the problem more clearly because I can see you guys don't understand the challenge you face in terms of creativity and creation, so you don't understand the relevance of the solution I have provided.

[Carl-Richard]

15 minutes ago, Scholar said:

My brain is getting foggy so I can't think as clearly any longer, I will have to illustrate the problem more clearly because I can see you guys don't understand the challenge you face in terms of creativity and creation, so you don't understand the relevance of the solution I have provided.

Just curious, have you ever gone through a phase of trying to severely simplify your language? From personal experience, I find that it also helps for thinking clearly It also helps to admit when you don't know/understand things. Maybe you'll come off like a simpleton like I did earlier, but at least you'll be more transparent to yourself, less foggy.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[Scholar]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

Just curious, have you ever gone through a phase of trying to severely simplify your language? From personal experience, I find that it also helps for thinking clearly It also helps to admit when you don't know/understand things. Maybe you'll come off like a simpleton like I did earlier, but at least you'll be more transparent to yourself, less foggy.

Well I already try to simplify it, I don't see where exactly people are having a hard time following what I am describing. To me it seems like people simply are not interested enough to genuinely read it and have sort of knee-jerk reactions to certain keywords I use.

For example, I was asked a question, and clarified it, but then, there was no response to my clarification at all. Instead, a whole new argument was opened which is different from the intitial statements I was making.

 

In the end, I will not be able to provide a mathematical proof, which if we get into the details is going to be required to logically justify what I am saying. Also, it is a little frustrating to argue with people who seemingly are not even understanding my point, and instead try to go into counter-argumentation before grasping what is even being said.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Carl-Richard]

30 minutes ago, Scholar said:

Well I already try to simplify it

I mean like going on a mission for an extended period of time trying to simplify how you write in general. It's an entire process.

 

30 minutes ago, Scholar said:

I don't see where exactly people are having a hard time following what I am describing. To me it seems like people simply are not interested enough to genuinely read it and have sort of knee-jerk reactions to certain keywords I use.

I'm sorry you feel that way.

 

30 minutes ago, Scholar said:

For example, I was asked a question, and clarified it, but then, there was no response to my clarification at all. Instead, a whole new argument was opened which is different from the intitial statements I was making.

I've responded to multiple clarifications. At one point, you stopped clarifying, and I answered with "if you say so". Then you kept clarifying, and I responded some more.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Carl-Richard

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Scholar said:

You would just, over and over again, get the same outcomes.

 You can have an infinite number of patterns that will results in an infinite number of different results, but applying the same patterns (given a specific set of restrictions or content) the same result could be generated.  So if you want new things - one can do things in an infinite number of different ways (using different patterns).

But also you can use the same pattern and generate new results - if you have a system,where the rules could stay the same, but the rules could change the content in a given system in a way, where applying the same rules over and over again will generate new/different results (because you apply the same rules on a changed content)

One example could be evolution. Lets say you pick an organism, apply evolution and grant an infinitely long time. The pattern (evolution) can  stay the same, but as time goes on and as evolution transforms that organism, the content(organism) will constantly change, even though the same rules are applied.

 

So 2 things to solve the problem of creation of new/novel things without randomness: 1) use more/different patterns 2) Apply the same pattern but on a different or changed content.

[Scholar]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

 You can have an infinite number of patterns that will results in an infinite number of different results, but applying the same patterns (given a specific set of restrictions or content) the same result could be generated.  So if you want new things - one can do things in an infinite number of different ways (using different patterns).

But also you can use the same pattern and generate new results - if you have a system,where the rules could stay the same, but the rules could change the content in a given system in a way, where applying the same rules over and over again will generate new/different results (because you apply the same rules on a changed content)

One example could be evolution. Lets say you pick an organism, apply evolution and grant an infinitely long time. The pattern (evolution) can  stay the same, but as time goes on and as evolution transforms that organism, the content(organism) will constantly change, even though the same rules are applied.

 

So 2 things to solve the problem of creation of new/novel things without randomness: 1) use more/different patterns 2) Apply the same pattern but on a different or changed content.

You are not actually explaining how this could evolve anything, or how it could result in machine learning.

Why does machine learning work? What kind of pattern? How does the pattern make things change?

 

You are just presupposing different patterns, but where do the new patterns come from? That's what you need to explain.

 

My position gives explanatory power to evolution, machine learning and creativity and unifies all of them into a singular process. And the proof is in the pudding: Evolution uses time and randomness (mutation) to reach function, and machine learning does the same. And, creativity, works also the same, if you pay attention to it.

Edited September 26, 2023 by Scholar

[Loveeee]

4 hours ago, Loveeee said: