AI 2023. Meet ChatGPT. - page 132
You are missing trading opportunities:
- Free trading apps
- Over 8,000 signals for copying
- Economic news for exploring financial markets
Registration
Log in
You agree to website policy and terms of use
If you do not have an account, please register
That's the thing ...
Data arrays are transformed by the brain... And the way thebrain works on that data is what gives rise to "concepts" of unknown "matter"... "energies", "energies". "information as a product of neural activity". "big bangs" and so on.
...
That's how our mind "exists" something that doesn't physically exist in nature. Just as the clock, in that computer, was generated only by changing the values of the parameters of the space, which was then "occupied by the computer", ... so all your "data sets" carry to the brain information about the values of the parameters of space at specific points of it. And don't confuse this with the existence of some mystical matter in these points, the essence and reasons for the appearance of which you can't explain yourself later.
The brain "produces" concepts to represent the phenomena of the environment. This is a standard "practice". Concepts are "tools" that help to process and represent the data of the surrounding world at different levels of abstraction. Unlike the mind, ChatGPT operates with ready-made concepts and relations obtained from texts, and it has no mechanisms for their generation. Therefore, it is not a real AI.
Concepts, parameters and values are tools of thinking (one of many).
Here are some related theses:
1. The mind generalises perceived information into a "concept".
2. Can convert a concept into a parameter.
3. Parameter represents the set or range of states of what the concept represents.
4. Always has an "object" at the centre of the concept.
5. An object can combine many parameters and the relationships between them.
6. Possible attributes of objects: events, states, processes, functions, etc.
7. The mind is capable of "disassembling" and "reassembling" objects from attributes.
Again, this is simple mechanics. It does not describe high levels of Mind's being.
No. Matter contains only other matter. Matter "book" contains matter "ink".
You are talking about context: a book contains information, a summons contains information about when and at what address to appear, a Japanese tattoo contains information "dummy", but the bearer of the tattoo doesn't know it, he just asked him to write a "funny character".
We are talking about physics, and here the concept "contains" means physical, spatial, material essence. A bottle contains liquid, concrete contains cement. Something that has physical properties. Information does not have physical and material properties.
You and several other participants in the conversation (sorry, I won't quote them all because of the number) claim that information is information only in the context of perception. Some also specify that perception is a process of nervous activity (apparently, of higher animals).
How about this example: a person gets into a car, starts it and drives it on his own. The fact that he does not control, say, the temperature of fuel-air mixture flashing in the cylinders during the movement, does it deprive these physico-chemical processes of information about them? According to you, it turns out that yes. There is only matter there and it will sort out how it interacts with itself there. But my view on this subject comes to the fact that all possible attributes of this matter, i.e. the entirety of information about it, form it (or vice versa, matter is the entirety of basic information about itself at the level of individual "informational" particles and field units). It is because of this basic information that matter interacts with other matter in this way and not in another way.
In living cells, on the basis of information contained in DNA molecules, ribosomes produce the required amino acids, and from them the proteins and other substances required by it, and cell division takes place (with copying of information from one DNA molecule to the collected copy). The reader of information is directly i-RNA (the first mediator of information transfer from DNA), and this molecule has no nervous activity, of course. It follows that there is no information there either (there is no reader with an evolved brain, is there)? And the behaviour of other elements of the process of copying sections of DNA (genes) for use in different parts of the cell and other processes is just "some interaction of matter"? Don't you think that if you can't see something (don't know it, don't have information about it), that doesn't deprive it of all the information it needs to exist?
Next, the example of a hard disc, blank and filled with some data. From a material point of view do you think they are equal? Those who tend to equate matter and infomation would say that of course they are not equal (nor would those who compared only the computer data on them, by the way). They contain the same amount of basic information about themselves, but differing in the properties of their magnetised regions. And only the higher-order information, which we call "computer data" forms solid zeros or encoded files there, which, again, for the end user (even higher-order information) after a lot of complicated transformations will look like "file contents" in the form of a butterfly on the screen, or in the form of a message that the disc is empty (although there is no less information about "solid zeros" there than when a file is written there).
Again, this indicates that either information does not exist at all (just an abstraction of perception by one "intelligent" matter of other matter), since it is not stored anywhere separately from matter and does not even exist. Either. Matter is information of the basic order, which can be further enriched by increasing complexity from quarks and elementary particles to the brain and its perceptions of the world, consciousness and other things pleasant to a man. Moreover, no physics is not broken, as some people were worried about.
You and several other participants of the conversation (sorry, I won't quote them all because of the number) claim that information is information only in the context of perception. Some also specify that perception is a process of nervous activity (apparently, of higher animals).
....well, I, for example, on the contrary, say that information does not depend on perception, and perception is only a reading of information, reading often not only with loss of part of information but also with distortion. asked questions, but no dialogue development is observed yet)))
... You see, absolute emptiness cannot exist because of the nature of the field. You are using wi-fi, which is field continuous matter. And if matter is continuous, then it is... continuous(!))))))))))) Well don't kid yourself, at any point in space there is gravity and field matter. Matter may be absent, space may be rarefied, but it is always filled. Hence, there is no such thing as absolute emptiness.....
An amazing creature - man
:"emptiness" - the total absence of anything, which is understandable and natural for everyone... which does not even need the moment of first appearance for its existence - does not exist, but fields, matter, gravity... which nobody understands.... and doesn't know when, why, or where they all hatched from - they do,...without the slightest shadow of embarrassment from this tiny little inconsistency . .. 
. So what if a person doesn't know where they're from or why. Does it make any difference? They just said "they happen" and that's it.
Konow retag:
The brain "produces"concepts to represent environmental phenomena. This is standard "practice". Concepts are "tools" to help process and represent environmental data at different levels of abstraction. Unlike the mind, ChatGPT operates with ready-made concepts and relations obtained from texts, and it has no mechanisms for their generation. Therefore, it is not a real AI.
Concepts, parameters and values are tools of thinking (one of many).
Here are some related talking points:
You perfectly explain a lot of different funny things
You just don't tell usWHERE all these thingscame from(it's a shoal, eh...)
It's uncomfortable: so many "copies are broken" in arguments about matter, fields, gravitation and information - and suddenly it turns out that they exist only in our imagination.
But for the existence of the whole world visible to us it is enough to fulfil only three simple conditions:
- first, that at least one parameter of each point of physical empty space can change its value;
- second, that this current value depends on values of all nearest neighbouring points of space;
- and third, that the speed of propagation of changes of parameters' values from point to point depends on their current values.
That's it... This is enough for the emergence of all observed by us wonders of the world
,... without the need to invent explanations of various fictitious phantoms (all sorts of matter 
).
well, I, for example, on the contrary, say that information does not depend on perception, and perception is only reading of information, reading often not only with loss of part of information but also with distortion. asked questions, but there is no dialogue development yet))))
Yes, I am not arguing with you. I just concentrated on another question about the basic information itself and its connection (or lack thereof) with matter.
You and several other participants of the conversation (sorry, I won't quote them all because of the number) claim that information is information only in the context of perception. Some also specify that perception is a process of nervous activity (apparently, of higher animals).
...
Please provide your definition of information. Clearly and concisely state the essence as you understand it. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but without stating an unambiguous position, this is just a stream of thought.
Note, my understanding may be wrong, but its integrity allows you to argue with it. Given the lack of definition of information on your part, having a variety of reasoning does not provide a basis for constructing "ironclad" counterarguments. What's the point of the discussion then?))
...
1. you perfectly explain a lot of different funny things
You just don't explainWHERE all these thingscame from(that's a shame, eh...).
2. And somehow, it turns out to be uncomfortable: so many "copies are broken" in disputes about matter, fields, gravitation with information - and then suddenly it turns out that they exist only in our imagination.
3. But for the existence of the whole world visible to us it is enough to fulfil only three simple conditions:
- first, that at least one parameter of each point of physical empty space can change its value;
- second, that this current value depends on values of all nearest neighbouring points of space;
- and third, that the speed of propagation of changes of parameters' values from point to point depends on their current values.
That's it... This is enough for the emergence of all the miracles of the world observed by us... without the need to invent explanations of various fictitious phantoms (all sorts of matter).
1. So how do I know where all these things came from? )) Who even knows? )) At this point, I'm researching the aforementioned "stuff" and hope to figure it out by the end. They are very interesting.
2. You could, of course, put it this way. I understand very well what exactly you mean. The fruits of the Mind exist only for it. We do not know what of them has a real presence in the external World. Clearly less than we realise. But what difference does it make? I realise that most of the most important entities in the universe are glued together by our conceptions of them. But the task is different. We are solving the Mind, not the World.
Studying the World and taking the Mind out of brackets, we will stumble into emptiness (isn't this the message you broadcast?). And this means - the whole World, which IS NOT emptiness, is only in the sphere of Reason. At least, that's where most of it is.
3. Let's start with the definition of a parameter. It is not as simple a thing as it seems. It's a serious tool. Where did it come from? The mind created it. So we must first study it, along with the other tools of the Mind. imho.
Please provide your definition of information. Clearly and concisely state the essence as you understand it. Everyone has the right to an opinion, but without stating an unambiguous position, this is just a stream of thought.
Note, my understanding may be wrong, but its integrity allows you to argue with it. Given the lack of definition of information on your part, having a variety of reasoning does not provide a basis for constructing "ironclad" counterarguments. What's the point of the discussion then?))
Of course, here is my interpretation: information is information about the objects that make up the world. At that, the objects themselves contain the entirety of information about themselves, but also information about them (to some extent and with possible distortions) can be possessed by subjects of cognition or "reflections of reality". And here I would not fixate exclusively on beings with nervous system, but would allow here any forms of "mental" reflection at all. And I would clearly separate the products of cognition from the most basic information about objects (cognising something, we always see only some part of it from some angle and make generalising conclusions, ignoring the incompleteness of information about the object of cognition).
From such a definition it logically follows (?) that the world in which any objects are possible is an "informational" environment for them. In other words, objects are inseparable from information about them.
Of course, here is my interpretation: information is information about the objects that make up the world. At the same time, the objects themselves contain the entirety of information about themselves, but also information about them (to some extent and with possible distortions) can be possessed by subjects of cognition or "reflections of reality". And here I would not dwell exclusively on creatures with nervous system, but would allow here any forms of "mental" reflection at all.
From such a definition it logically follows (?) that the world in which any objects are possible is an "informational" environment for them. In other words, objects are inseparable from information about them.
Of course, here is my interpretation: information is information about the objects that make up the world. At that, the objects themselves contain the entirety of information about themselves, but also information about them (to some extent and with possible distortions) can be possessed by subjects of cognition or "reflections of reality". And here I would not fixate exclusively on beings with nervous system, but would allow here any forms of "mental" reflection at all. And I would clearly separate the products of cognition from the most basic information about objects (cognising something, we always see only some part of it from some angle and make generalising conclusions, ignoring the incompleteness of information about the object of cognition).
From such a definition it logically follows (?) that the world in which any objects are possible is an "informational" environment for them. In other words, objects are inseparable from information about them.