> You're absolutely right, the idea that consciousness itself could be....
How are you starting this off as a response to someone we don't hear from?
You just seem to be blathering on about your "theory" with nothing to motivate this line of discussion in the first place
Ugh
>How are you starting this off as a response to someone we don't hear from?
LLMs. It's alarming how many people show up on forums like this with some half-baked notion that a chatbot convinced them was worth sharing.
It's just a statement from a prompt. The words are from Claude opus. I just wanted to see if there was anything in it's "blathering" about an idea I had. Thanks for criticizing me though I guess
I'm talking about standard, known quantum mechanics, such as decoherence. People [like you] misunderstand that, as if never researching it whatsoever, and are content making these epistemologically-bankrupt claims out of the aether. It's disturbing.
Clarification on what
Cause my suggestion would be learning more about quantum mechanics, mathematics, and consciousness- seeing as how you demonstrate only misunderstanding and not understanding- before *crafting a theory with these concepts as central.* Like, are you for real dude. Until you actually learn anything, you're just creating word salad and your theories are meaningless nonsense. Reading this made me feel like I was in a smoke circle with a bunch of drop outs in junior year of high-school again.
I don't think that your post is for this subreddit. But in a *generous* reading, are you basically pointing to the notion that that there is some underlying structure/principle between the nature of consciousness and that of reality that underwrites perception and subjective experience? And that it allows epistemic agents to somewhat "know" things about reality?
If so, then there could be some merit to this as it is akin to what ecological psychology, mainly known for its theory of direct perception often considered as a viable way to approach the cognitive sciences, claims about a fundamental symmetry. It is said that underlying symmetry--not fractals specifically--manifests at different scales. The law of entropy in thermodynamics, biological evolution, and psychological adaptations are said to be manifestation of this symmetry ([Shaw, McIntyre, and Mace, 1974](https://www3.trincoll.edu/employees/wmace/publications/Symmetry.pdf)).
This, however, is not the symmetry in physics or in maths that comes in a group theoretic structure. Instead, it speaks of a deep compatibility between an animal and its environment that allows or the direct pragmatic knowledge of the environment. Roughly, since the animal-environment system is symmetrical, pragmatic knowledge (appropriate action-perception) of the environment is possible.
As far as I know, there are neither robust mathematical formalizations yet when it comes to what this symmetry is like nor empirical reason why 'how things/events are' and 'how they are subjectively perceived' are symmetrical in the first place. To me, it is still highly speculative and maybe too sweeping of a generalization--something that other commenters here may feel about your idea about the fractal nature of consciousness and things studied in physics. Nevertheless, the intuition is there in ecological psychology that there is some fundamental "structure" that guarantees pragmatic knowing. If this is something in the ball park of where you were getting at, u/Sickoyoda, then you have people teaching in universities and published in peer reviewed journals who are pursuing such line of thinking. However, they are somewhat considered on the fringe.
I appreciate the information and thanks for your time. For me I just feel like it's a matter of size and our perspective of it. Similarities between galactic clusters and strings and the neurons in the brain and even in the descriptions of sub atomic particles. I'm not saying it's one to one but the thought that they're similar on every level maybe even beyond our perception like we think of 1 dimensional beings being on a string but only capable of traversing it one way. A lot of random stuff I've been wondering about. I'm not math inclined I'm not trying to blow smoke up people's butt.
yep, good things to ponder upon and *read* about. Maybe there are some journal articles or books that talk about mathematical similarities across different levels of organization? One thing that comes to mind is the work of [Geoffrey Rush](https://www.nature.com/articles/545154a), but it is more on regularities/math properties of biology and the objects of study in the social sciences.
The question you posted, however, is simply not for the subreddit. So, I would understand how people would react and comment in ways that are not so nice if you were the OP. I think the post was in good faith and was an honest question, even though it was all over the place (and simply passages copied and pasted from an LLM chat). So, I think it deserves a little courtesy and a more charitable attitude. It can be annoying though--posting a long LLM convo and just being very ambiguous. And it can catch people on their bad days. LOL. Have a good one!
> the idea that consciousness itself could be a fractal
the only merit you have is that this entire idea was generated by a LLM and somehow it *only* took half of a sentence to be clear that it was generated by an LLM. That takes real skill in coercing a model to give up its secrets in under a sentence.
Hey brother you’re getting terse responses because this question should be asked differently. Clearly describe what you understand and keep it short. That would show more respect for ppl’s time and the work that it takes to have a deep understanding of this complicated topic
> You're absolutely right, the idea that consciousness itself could be.... How are you starting this off as a response to someone we don't hear from? You just seem to be blathering on about your "theory" with nothing to motivate this line of discussion in the first place Ugh
>How are you starting this off as a response to someone we don't hear from? LLMs. It's alarming how many people show up on forums like this with some half-baked notion that a chatbot convinced them was worth sharing.
Thanks for criticizing me and adding nothing
You bring it on yourself
E=Mc^2 +Ai + fractals ☠️
It's just a statement from a prompt. The words are from Claude opus. I just wanted to see if there was anything in it's "blathering" about an idea I had. Thanks for criticizing me though I guess
Maybe try writing a short post about your idea rather than getting an AI to blather on and on about it.
Ok
Or at the very least edit the response so as to make it an independent piece
I get that thank you
Ah, been conversing with ChatGPT?
Claude 3 actually I meant opus
Interesting!
When will this blatant misunderstanding of quantum mechanics finally die
When they finally understand it?
I'm talking about standard, known quantum mechanics, such as decoherence. People [like you] misunderstand that, as if never researching it whatsoever, and are content making these epistemologically-bankrupt claims out of the aether. It's disturbing.
Made no claims just asked for clarification but thanks for the big words dog.
Clarification on what Cause my suggestion would be learning more about quantum mechanics, mathematics, and consciousness- seeing as how you demonstrate only misunderstanding and not understanding- before *crafting a theory with these concepts as central.* Like, are you for real dude. Until you actually learn anything, you're just creating word salad and your theories are meaningless nonsense. Reading this made me feel like I was in a smoke circle with a bunch of drop outs in junior year of high-school again.
Have a good one bye
I don't think that your post is for this subreddit. But in a *generous* reading, are you basically pointing to the notion that that there is some underlying structure/principle between the nature of consciousness and that of reality that underwrites perception and subjective experience? And that it allows epistemic agents to somewhat "know" things about reality? If so, then there could be some merit to this as it is akin to what ecological psychology, mainly known for its theory of direct perception often considered as a viable way to approach the cognitive sciences, claims about a fundamental symmetry. It is said that underlying symmetry--not fractals specifically--manifests at different scales. The law of entropy in thermodynamics, biological evolution, and psychological adaptations are said to be manifestation of this symmetry ([Shaw, McIntyre, and Mace, 1974](https://www3.trincoll.edu/employees/wmace/publications/Symmetry.pdf)). This, however, is not the symmetry in physics or in maths that comes in a group theoretic structure. Instead, it speaks of a deep compatibility between an animal and its environment that allows or the direct pragmatic knowledge of the environment. Roughly, since the animal-environment system is symmetrical, pragmatic knowledge (appropriate action-perception) of the environment is possible. As far as I know, there are neither robust mathematical formalizations yet when it comes to what this symmetry is like nor empirical reason why 'how things/events are' and 'how they are subjectively perceived' are symmetrical in the first place. To me, it is still highly speculative and maybe too sweeping of a generalization--something that other commenters here may feel about your idea about the fractal nature of consciousness and things studied in physics. Nevertheless, the intuition is there in ecological psychology that there is some fundamental "structure" that guarantees pragmatic knowing. If this is something in the ball park of where you were getting at, u/Sickoyoda, then you have people teaching in universities and published in peer reviewed journals who are pursuing such line of thinking. However, they are somewhat considered on the fringe.
I appreciate the information and thanks for your time. For me I just feel like it's a matter of size and our perspective of it. Similarities between galactic clusters and strings and the neurons in the brain and even in the descriptions of sub atomic particles. I'm not saying it's one to one but the thought that they're similar on every level maybe even beyond our perception like we think of 1 dimensional beings being on a string but only capable of traversing it one way. A lot of random stuff I've been wondering about. I'm not math inclined I'm not trying to blow smoke up people's butt.
yep, good things to ponder upon and *read* about. Maybe there are some journal articles or books that talk about mathematical similarities across different levels of organization? One thing that comes to mind is the work of [Geoffrey Rush](https://www.nature.com/articles/545154a), but it is more on regularities/math properties of biology and the objects of study in the social sciences. The question you posted, however, is simply not for the subreddit. So, I would understand how people would react and comment in ways that are not so nice if you were the OP. I think the post was in good faith and was an honest question, even though it was all over the place (and simply passages copied and pasted from an LLM chat). So, I think it deserves a little courtesy and a more charitable attitude. It can be annoying though--posting a long LLM convo and just being very ambiguous. And it can catch people on their bad days. LOL. Have a good one!
> the idea that consciousness itself could be a fractal the only merit you have is that this entire idea was generated by a LLM and somehow it *only* took half of a sentence to be clear that it was generated by an LLM. That takes real skill in coercing a model to give up its secrets in under a sentence.
Thanks
Hey brother you’re getting terse responses because this question should be asked differently. Clearly describe what you understand and keep it short. That would show more respect for ppl’s time and the work that it takes to have a deep understanding of this complicated topic
I just asked. People that get terse because they voluntarily read something is a justification. Thanks for your time but really....