Mallowram

5 ms·

1.
by Mallowram 1y ago
The problem is that language doesn't produce itself. Re-checking, correcting error is not relevant. Error minimization is not the fount of survival, remaining variable for tasks is. The lossy encyclopedia is neither here nor there, it&
2.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Just an experiment to see how lost the CS community is at the AI psychosis threshold. The industry has simply no clue to what it's automating in arbitrary words. Unless you all grasp the dimensions of the problem, the industry is a din
3.
by Mallowram 1y ago
It only makes sense to scientific thinkers who think in correlation, and know how degraded words and sentences are. Anyone who accepts word statements as valid is at loss. The only role of language is to refute itself.
4.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Words don't represent thoughts in any way shape or form. They externalize bias as a pretext to communication, which is arbitary. Every word is a metaphor, every word is mythological. These are empirical facts developed from Aristotle,
5.
by Mallowram 1y ago
That's irrelevant. Cog-sci is largely folk psychology, and the problems in automating inference in AI demonstrate the model would eventually collapse. Question is how do we toss this model aside for an irreducible form of post-symbolic
6.
by Mallowram 1y ago
First off, we don't use predictions, that's another model, it's false (Spontaneous Brain Northoff or read Mofakham's papers). In terms of words, they barely represent and never reference. Any statement like that serves p
7.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Doesn't require models in dynamics, coordination or otherwise.
8.
by Mallowram 1y ago
The brain is oscillatory and dynamic, everything is in there. It's lossless. The analog nature of compression is limitless. This system if you can call it that, is inseparable from the universe ("The World"). Everything in th
9.
by Mallowram 1y ago
The problem is, neurobiology proves there are no world models. Silicon Valley bet on the wrong cognition model, a psychological version trapped in 20th C bunk, and everyone pays the price listening to cult leaders like Scott Alexander worm
10.
by Mallowram 1y ago
btw what this means neurobiologically/neurodynamically is that arbitrary language's only function is to refute itself. That is its only form of reasoning or logic in grammar. It's only a temporary palliative that eventually g
11.
by Mallowram 1y ago
The clearest direct claim is if there are no contradictions then language is impossible. Language is not a "reflection of reality" in any way shape or form: reality is always specific, language is always arbitrary. We're curr
12.
by Mallowram 1y ago
The problem of the GEB is it's containment in symbols. Godel was unaware of the the potential for direct perception, and ecological psychology, and coordination dynamics. All three are possible non-contradictory paths to direct percept
13.
by Mallowram 1y ago
As humans don't think in language, ie, there is no direct contact between what we think we think, and how we externalize what we think we think arbitrarily, empirically language is primarily about these biases and only secondarily abou
14.
Folk science counting tech costing billions yet.. still in beta(docs.google.com)
3 points by Mallowram 1y ago|0 comments
15.
by Mallowram 1y ago
This is an idealized fantasy of language. Language is primarily about patriarchal dominance, control, status, mate-selection, topophilia, and secondarily about communicating ideas. The dark matter of language is expressed in mythological id
16.
by Mallowram 1y ago
words, symbols, sentences, tokens, all are arbitrary. They stay arbitrary unless there is an irrefutable target like a tumor. This is the basis of CS
17.
by Mallowram 1y ago
btw - this is the Achilles heel to CS "Nothing is specific to neural networks." Pretty fascinating that the illusion of counting, math, algebra will all ne superseded by measurement in analog, a measurement that requires no math,
18.
by Mallowram 1y ago
No my approach is there is no model. Nothing is reducible. It's a neurodynamic approach. The idea of a world model is oxymoronic, the brain doesn't reduce anything to models, making math and logic irrelevant. Nothing you are talki
19.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Arguments are all built in neural-syntax specifics. How they externalize as arbitrary points is largely irrelevant, which demonstrates how humans go extinct: confusing the two. The basic 'fact' is words and the conduit metaphor pa
20.
by Mallowram 1y ago
If you don't grasp the basic ideas of paradox questioning the nature of language beginning in presocratics and winding their way through Aristotle, Socrates, Kant Hume and many others and also appearing in Advaita Vedanta (eg Nisargada
21.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Aristotle: There are no contradictions. Cassirer: “Only when we put away words will be able to reach the initial conditions, only then will we have direct perception. All linguistic denotation is essentially ambiguous–and in this ambiguity,
22.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Even Shannon knew the limits of information late in career. AI is not information, it's signaling. And it embeds without decipherment or segregating dominance, bias, control, manipulation. The dark matter of language we can't extr
23.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Rather the opposite, that language is about social structure primarily and propositional secondarily.
24.
by Mallowram 1y ago
While McKenna is interesting, it's still metaphysical and probably nonsense. If you stick to hard science, aphasia studies reveal language and thought have nothing to do with one another, which means language is arbitrary gibberish tha
25.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Think of a future where spatial analog rules over binary legacy as the latter is phased out. Now you can see where the bets are wrong.
26.
by Mallowram 1y ago
In 1973 Basil Bernstein studied how UK scores in math defied class boundaries while scores in reading comprehension/essays stayed tied to them, and he developed a theory with Halliday that language embeds so much that we cannot deciphe
27.
by Mallowram 1y ago
There is no intent in words in and of themselves. Intent always comes from something specific tied to neural syntax, which is lost in words. That's an illusion. There is intensionality, which is different, which is what you're act
28.
Why Cannot Large Language Models Models Ever Make True Correct Reasoning?(arxiv.org)
3 points by Mallowram 1y ago|0 comments
29.
by Mallowram 1y ago
Words aren't specific, they're arbitrary. Any model using the arbitrary to stand in for action or specifics will always be mid. Words are in this way gibberish. Only actions are real. That's the achilles heel Warzel can'
30.
by Mallowram 1y ago
The problem is the industry hasn't solved the conduit metaphor paradox, so AI will always remain a magic act in public view that goes nowhere and a a specific tool that can help solve real problems in chemistry and biology. As a genera

More ›