18 ms·

>Everyone needs to know how happy Matt was. Not always, but recently. People need to know what demons he held at bay. Real ones. We live in strange times when

>Everyone needs to know how happy Matt was. Not always, but recently. People need to know what demons he held at bay. Real ones. We live in strange times when we can look into space with incredible resolution, but even artists don't have the tools to express the inner structures of their mind that makes them feel bad. It's strange that Chemistry could identify the structure of so many molecules without ever seeing them but we can't do the same with the structures of the mind. What are the obstacles that prevent us from reasoning about our mind structures like we reason about software?

tempodox 4y ago
It is incredibly hard to observe yourself observing yourself. Or objectively describe your subjectivity. It's a blind-spot problem.
- closedloop129 4y ago
  We have built a telescope in space to kind of avoid blind spots. What can we build to avoid the blind spots for ourselves? I would expect some form of collaboration since others are not inhibited by our own blind spots.
tux3 4y ago
Software is made of human ideas molded into grammar, syntax, and abstractions. We know how to work with those at every level. The mind is made of and affected by proteins, enzymes, small molecules. Those form cells, and larger structures, but at every level it is exceptionally hard for us to work with those building blocks. There's no nice formulas or method that can tell you what a protein does, or how to design one that does what you want. It is as if every single token of the source code was encrypted, and it took great effort to translate anything, word by word, slowly and painstakingly. One thing we can do is take small bits of code, put them in thousands of slightly different live systems, and watch what happens. Clinical trials. That helps a lot, but it is still an uphill battle trying to understand the far future alien technology that is biology.
- closedloop129 4y ago
  Do we have to understand the biological level? We don't talk about silicon when we talk about software. Art shows us the structure of the mind without the need of understanding its physical representation. Another way is spirituality where structures are called demons. We have some understanding of art, but it feels as limited as medieval alchemy. There must be a better way to approach our mind.
  - tux3 4y ago
    It depends what you want to get out of your study of the mind. Art can be a goal in and of itself. It, however, has historically contributed less to the success of medicine than furthering our understanding of biology. So, I have a pretty narrow, muleheaded interest in evidence-based beliefs that pay their rents in predictions about the world. Those I like, because they sometimes convert into useful medical interventions.
mllllv 4y ago
Check out the Laws of Form by G Spencer Brown.
- closedloop129 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form >Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition

tempodox 4y ago

It is incredibly hard to observe yourself observing yourself. Or objectively describe your subjectivity. It's a blind-spot problem.

closedloop129 4y ago
We have built a telescope in space to kind of avoid blind spots. What can we build to avoid the blind spots for ourselves? I would expect some form of collaboration since others are not inhibited by our own blind spots.

tux3 4y ago

Software is made of human ideas molded into grammar, syntax, and abstractions. We know how to work with those at every level. The mind is made of and affected by proteins, enzymes, small molecules. Those form cells, and larger structures, but at every level it is exceptionally hard for us to work with those building blocks. There's no nice formulas or method that can tell you what a protein does, or how to design one that does what you want. It is as if every single token of the source code was encrypted, and it took great effort to translate anything, word by word, slowly and painstakingly. One thing we can do is take small bits of code, put them in thousands of slightly different live systems, and watch what happens. Clinical trials. That helps a lot, but it is still an uphill battle trying to understand the far future alien technology that is biology.

closedloop129 4y ago
Do we have to understand the biological level? We don't talk about silicon when we talk about software. Art shows us the structure of the mind without the need of understanding its physical representation. Another way is spirituality where structures are called demons. We have some understanding of art, but it feels as limited as medieval alchemy. There must be a better way to approach our mind.
- tux3 4y ago
  It depends what you want to get out of your study of the mind. Art can be a goal in and of itself. It, however, has historically contributed less to the success of medicine than furthering our understanding of biology. So, I have a pretty narrow, muleheaded interest in evidence-based beliefs that pay their rents in predictions about the world. Those I like, because they sometimes convert into useful medical interventions.

mllllv 4y ago

Check out the Laws of Form by G Spencer Brown.

closedloop129 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_Form >Those who agree point to LoF as embodying an enigmatic "mathematics of consciousness", its algebraic symbolism capturing an (perhaps even "the") implicit root of cognition