There will be some people on this forum that simply cannot fathom 'thinking' without words; and others who refer to 'thinking' as only being worded. — I like sushi

I don't understand what you are saying here. It sounds like two opposite stands, but the first has a double negation and the second has none, so they both point to the same statement.

"people .. cannot fathom 'thinking' without words" = thinking must have words

I do not believe that we truly know anything. — Plex

Hi Plex, I'm also new here. Welcome.

I think there is one thing I know, and that is that "I exist" or "I am", as they call it. But then, I do not now that you exist (you could be a bot). You also do not know that I exist. So in the end I do agree that we do not know anything.

There are shades of knowing. If we have mutual understanding what numbers are and how we can add them up, we can be pretty sure that 1 + 1 = 2. Math is not very dependent on our external world, but it does require a shared perspective. And you can only hope that these perspectives do align.

It the book "Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy", numbers behave differently inside a restaurant. So there you have it, we know nothing for sure.

I will

O there is one more place where you tell me what I am doing wrong, it makes a little bit more sense here. (Numbering added by me.)

1) It's a mixture of the content quality,
2) the content's lack of overlap with academic philosophy or common philosophy discussions,
3) the style of engagement,
4) the frequency of thread creation
5) the singularity of interest in one's own already written work.

All of those things skirt the rules individually.

My defense:
1) opinions on this differ, many people have said they like my pieces
2) I didn't know that that was a requirement. I explained I have problems with theory-on-theory.
3) Same here, most discussions are theory-on-theory, I feel little overlap and rather start clean.
4) I took a year off for this project, and currently I am focussing on this forum. I can write less, but 1st time I hear this argument
5) I have addressed this is a possible problem from the start and got admins permission

The funny thing is that this whole thing proves that human thinking is broken. — Carlo Roosen

not excluding my own thinking for that matter!

The funny thing is that this whole thing proves that human thinking is broken.

Read what I said. The same argument is held to me again and again, followed with comments like "you are warned" (which I interpret as a warning of being banned). And that argument is: "your way of making a point (by asking the readers' personal experience) leaves no room for discussion. It is evangelism". And here is an example post that is moved for that very reason, and the discussion is lively.

Not only lively, it discusses one of my statements, that thinking is powered by language. The objection is that some people think without words. That is new for me, and I think it is valuable input.

But mine is about the core of philosophy, limitations of human language and thinking. And fdrake said it was moved to the Lounge because it didn't stimulate discussion. But you'll need the whole thread here to see the context.

This is a post that was moved to the Lounge because it didn't leave enough room for discussion, as I understand it. Look at the discussion going on there!

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/15500/human-thinking-is-reaching-the-end-of-its-usability

[edit] Basically you are saying, don't have the guts to publish OP in a regular category. Even if I write something that is at the core of philosophy, namely, where do we find truth, in thinking or in direct realisation, it should be in the Lounge.

To me your answer shows that it is perfectly possible to have a discussion with me. Because here we are, discussing.

O, one more thing. The only explanation you have given here are these two points:

If your response to criticism is "validate my ideas experientially", rather than through conceptual analysis and dialogue, it isn't an approach that promotes discussion and criticism of your ideas. It promotes sharing your ideas without critical dialogue. — fdrake

I should also have mentioned that writing principally to help you make a superintelligent AI in your basement (so to speak), skirts extremely close to pseudoscience. You're being warned and modded in general because of a combination of all these things. If your conduct on site goes against a good number of the guidelines and rules, how could you expect not to be modded for it? — fdrake

Asking others to validate my ideas experientially, why does that stop discussion? Others can come back and say: I looked out of the window and what I saw was that the moon is a banana. We'll have a great discussion after that.

And about the monster in my basement, I explained that these are two distinct goals, building the thing and verifying if it is a smart thing to do. Why is that pseudoscience?

So no, I really have no idea what I should do differently.

Ok, I'll leave it here. Let others tell me what I apparently cannot see.

No I sent him the full OP text plus the pdf. Just because I was not sure to what extend this was acceptable. "It's good" is not a conditional acceptance.

But all the information was in that email, including the pdf of the book, and Jamal says "It's good". I post it and two minutes later it is deleted.

You're making it worse and worse for yourself. I try not to throw shit at you, but now I'll have to tell all the details.

On Thu, Oct 3, 2024 at 15:25 Carlo Roosen wrote:

Hi [Jamal],
This is a draft of the first post I plan to write on the forum. Please also look at the note at the end.
...
note: This text is adapted from a little book I am writing. A link to the
latest version of this book is on my profile page. Any feedback is welcome.

It’s good. It should produce a lively discussion.
[Jamal]

Also note that no one complained about that particular topic, it is still on the main page. — fdrake

You deleted it first, it was only brought back with intervention of others

That is extremely close to evangelising from personal revelation. If your response to criticism is "validate my ideas experientially", rather than through conceptual analysis and dialogue, it isn't an approach that promotes discussion and criticism of your ideas. It promotes sharing your ideas without critical dialogue. — fdrake

So if people say the moon is a cube, and I am telling them to look out of the window to see it is actually round, that is not allowed? Then if they start discussing about what a window is, is it not allowed to point it to them?

Later I was NOT allowed to mention anything in my posts. I took my website offline including the booklet. I wrote original OP, although, naturally, I have similar ideas whatever I write.

I sent PM's to several users (not moderators) for assistance, they did actually help a lot.

Even yesterday I got warnings like this: "Please engage with others' ideas on the forum as well, you were warned."

Here is my original email to Jamal:

Hello, My name is Carlo Roosen and I would like to get an invitation to be able
to contribute to the website thephilosophyforum.com.
I have been working on a theory of Artificial Intelligence in relation
to human intelligence. I have written my ideas in a little booklet [link]
This book is not for sale or has no commercial goals whatsoever, I wrote
it as a guidance in order to build an AI myself, and make my own goals
more clear. I am a software programmer by profession and I decided to
take a year off to work on this project.

And here his answer:

Generally you're not allowed to share your link in posts, if that's the primary purpose of posting, but you can put it in your profile and mention it in your posts (e.g., "to see the argument in detail, see the link in my profile"), so long as you're setting out freshly worded arguments within the posts themselves rather than just directing people to the book. Simply copy and pasting from another source is frowned upon, although you can of course quote yourself and anyone else.

If you're happy with that, let me know and I'll send an invitation.

I am glad you are repeating all this here, so other people see what I had to deal with for several days...

Other users. And nothing offensive, they suggested that mentioning Kant was a sidestep, that's all.
I'll edit the post here to remove that confusion.

I am not talking about you

Also note that no one complained about that particular topic, it is still on the main page. — fdrake

I got multiple PM's on this

Now they are in the open, and I expect a few different viewpoints coming after yours. So yes, it was a good suggestion of you to let me post this on the Feedback. Thanks for that.

[edit]

I have another suggestion. Good thinking! I'll come back to it.

AI systems must be designed and deployed with a high level of transparency, providing clear information about how they operate and their decision-making processes. Users should understand how AI influences outcomes that affect them. — Benkei

The problem with this is that even if you have all the information about an AI (code, training data, trained neural net), you cannot predict what an AI will do. Only through intensive testing you can learn how it behaves. A neural net is a complex emergent system. Like evolution, we cannot predict the next step.

This only will get more difficult as the AI becomes smarter.

Look at the work of the Santa Fe Institute if you are interested in complexity. Melanie Mitchell.

Thank you that helps. I am in an ongoing struggle with two moderators and so far I didn't get much help, just the occasional "if you do this again you'll be banned".

These are all from OP's on the home page:

Periodically, Kant’s CPR comes back to haunt me: it is like a world-class quality car—but there’s one screw slightly loose.

While browsing the CNN site this morning I came across this article:
Why the ‘Godfather of AI’ decided he had to ‘blow the whistle’ on the technology

I know it's a bit of a brainfuck because it's literally impossible to imagine another logic that doesn't use our logic connectors at all, but conceptually, why would people think that our mind happens to have the right tools to understand the universe?

That I do agree with, to some degree. Don't underestimate what happens in neural nets, though. The outcome of, say, chatGPT is what we call 'emergent complexity'. In other words, we have no model of how it works. We know the architecture, the rules. We have the training data and how we train it. But what comes out is really something new, in the sense that nobody can predict it.

The only thing is that the architecture is still too limited such that it only 'sort of' captures the essence what it is trained on. It cannot raise above it. To solve that is the idea that I am working on. But to really understand that idea, you must learn to step out of thinking a bit. I have a bit of a challenge here on the forum to get that across. So if you have some idea what I am talking about, let me know.

why is it taking so long? — jkop

Is it taking so long? Computers are around less than 90 years. ChatGPT is only a few years old. The rate of improvement is enormous.

The speed of light is a physical constant, part of a fundamental reality — RussellA

I believe the speed of light is also a concept. It involves time and distance, these are already very much determined by the human conceptual view of reality.

In physics, the deeper you go it the theoretic aspects, speed of light becomes an almost transcendantal topic and looses its hard meaning. Maybe seen that way it does no harm to call it fundamental reality.

In practice, I think it has little consequence if you call "all the particles in the universe" the fundamental reality. For the same reason, that is an almost transcedental way of looking at the universe.

I think the idea of consistency loses its meaning in that context, both because fundamental reality is presumably not something conceptual and because there is no second thing for it to be consistent with even if it were conceptual. — Janus

consistency, I think it is defined by me and others in this post as: consistent with our models. I called it a one-way system. This is what I mean by that: in most cases, if you test your models, the result that comes back from fundamental reality, most often agrees with those models. Most rocket launches are successful. In the cases this is not true, we assume our models need adjustment, not that reality has become unstable. So it is not a "hard" property, it is our general experience that fundamental reality is stable.

ok I've removed it.

Yes, that's entropy — 180 Proof

One example of wrapping a statement in some term without adding understanding. In this case entropy comes from a domain that is very precise - informatica. You apply it loosely to a domain that is highly complex. What do you want to say? Do you want to throw another book at me?

I actually like your reply because it is so easy to refute. If you read Kahneman more carefully you would see his ideas perfectly align with mine. You mix up system 1 with the non-thinking state.

If you think in a compulsive way, it is basically system 1 at work. When you practice a bit more non-thinking inbetween your thinking, is is where creativity comes in. That is what Kahneman refers to as system 2.

And I'd rather be ridiculed than ignored, so thank you for the attention.

further and more detailed accounts of this please — I like sushi

I'll have to think about it. Already it seems I am writing on the edge what is tolerable here...

Yes of course I will do everything I can to describe it. The difficulty of course is that language can refer only to shared experiences, and even then only if we use the same labels. I could call it a "religious experience" for instance, but what does that mean for me and for you?

The good news is that you can experience it yourself quite easily. The urge to think is a strong one, and one of my big questions is why evolution switched from non-thinking (animals) to only-thinking (humans). But any meditation practice is meant to relax that urge.

One of the curious things I encounter daily is what I call "impressions". They feel like old memories, with a very distinct atmosphere or, indeed impression. No images, no stories. Every time completely different, in the same way smells can vary in infinite ways. And they feel pleasant, too.

Only this week I discovered that these impressions naturally come up when you have a new insight. This impression then is attached to the insight and serves as a kind of label for later reference. Apparently in my case this whole mechanism has become detached from its normal purpose, and I get those impression at random times, several times a day.

My Stroke of Insight — I like sushi

I haven't read it, I will. I had no stroke. No diagnosis has been given in my case, except for a conversion syndrome that distorts my left eye on occasion.

That will be tomorrow's OP then.

I can write a bit of my personal story.

I have experience with Eckhart Tolle, living in The Now. Basically it means just stop thinking and perceive everything without concepts. But that always felt a bit unnatural.

Five years ago I got surgery and woke up completely blank, no memory at all. I didn't know my own name. And without memory there was nothing to think about. I still have these experiences almost daily, but less extreme. These experiences give me the opportunity to watch what happens when the first thought reappears. I could write more about it from this perspective, if that is helpful?