Vanilla 1.1.9 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2021
     
    So,, Hoffman and his group have found that just two 1bit conscious agents interacting over time....

    A--Become entangled and...

    B--Can produce the identical equation to the wave function of a free particle. Also energy and momentum can be read off of it.

    He claims that anything a Turing machine can compute, a network of conscious agents can compute.

    The Necker cube,, which is a 2 dimensional drawing of a 'cube' in which we create the cube in our minds, a cube which is prone to spontaneously 'flip' or turn inside out,,, behaves as described precisely by the math formulas for Superposition and Entanglement.

    Conscious agents can interact entirely within themselves to exhibit total introspection. They have a mathematically precise model for introspection.

    Here is the talk

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6eWG7x_6Y5U
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2021 edited
     
    OK. I watched it.

    The first half of it repeats a lot of stuff from previous talks intended to demonstrate that what we see is not what is. Of course it isn't. That's why we invented the scientific method. Way back in 2009 I posted right here on the moletrap another demonstration you can do to illustrate that what you see cannot be what is there. It's better than any of his.

    https://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=150&page=3


    As to the rest of the talk I am far less than impressed.

    He has a way of drawing a graph that he calls a "conscious agent" and messing around with it to produce formulas that look a bit like some physics stuff such as the Schrödinger equation. He throws in some Dirac bra-ket notation for extra impressiveness. (I'd love to see somebody do the same sort of thing in Heisenberg's matrix mechanics notation, now forgotten). Then he proceeds to draw conclusions about consciousness.

    It's worth pointing out that the link between his "conscious agent" graph and actual consciousness is just a postulate he makes. So drawing conclusions from it is just intellectual wanking, or "string theory" as the physicists call it. But going along with it for the moment, formal similarities between equations that have quite different meanings, partly because the meaning of one of them is completely unknown, does not lead to better truths of any kind. Introducing the idea of "entanglement" to consciousness on this basis just serves to make one sound like a snake-oil salesman.


    Nope. Count me out.
    •  
      CommentAuthoroak
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2021
     
    Thanks for watching it, Angus, and for your comments.

    Here's a link to the previous Hoffman thread, for what it's worth.

    https://www.moletrap.co.uk/forum/comments.php?DiscussionID=18272
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2021 edited
     
    I see a few strained analogies but no insights.
  1.  
    It's even worse than Wolfram
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeApr 9th 2021
     
    Meh
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    I want to point out that the mathematician working with Hoffman is Chetan Prakash, He has a Ph.D. in mathematical physics from Cornell. Not exactly a hack. Here is one of their papers. See if you can keep up, Angus...

    https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263704213_Objects_of_consciousness
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    Ref to crd dos not arg mke.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    Well before I begin, there's this
    Frontiers Media was included in Jeffrey Beall's list of "potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers
    • CommentAuthorsonoboy
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    Posted By: AngusJeffrey Beall's list of "potential, possible, or probable predatory publishers


    A 'possible' predatory publisher...hmmmmm.... Sounds like this Beall character is a bit unsure of himself.
    •  
      CommentAuthoraber0der
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021 edited
     
    Tja...
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021 edited
     
    OK. So I ploughed through enough of it to get pretty bored. Most of it was in the talk discussed before. The "mathematics" is really just a notation for an algorithm they claim models consciousness. There is no proof nor evidence that it does. ( I bailed at the point where they were discussing the harmonic functions of Markov processes in order to draw a parallel to quantum mechanics, in case anybody wants to take me to task. Life's too short.)

    But to summarise, here's where I get off the train.
    The key to understanding this finding is the distinction between fitness and truth. If W denotes the objective world (i.e., the truth), O denotes an organism, S the state of that organism, and A an action of that organism, then one can describe fitness as a function f :W×O×S×A→R. In other words, fitness depends not only on the objective truth W, but also on the organism, its state and the action. Thus, fitness and truth are quite distinct.


    This is waffle. They make "fitness" and "objective truth" quite distinct, right after saying that fitness depends on objective truth.

    Hoffman's whole thesis is a farrago of the blindingly obvious (one evolves to perceive what benefits one's survival) and the utterly unwarranted:

    We propose that micro- physical objects represent asymptotic properties of the dynamics of conscious agents, and that space-time is simply a convenient framework for this representation. Specifically, we observe that the harmonic functions of the space-time chain that is associated with the dynamics of a system of conscious agents are identical to the wave function of a free particle; particles are vibrations not of strings but of interacting conscious agents.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    Upon thinking more about it I realise that guy particularly annoys me. I've run into these types before - legitimate psych researchers with physics envy. There is enough honest perceptual research still to do that there's no sense taking the little we know and inflating it to be a Theory of Everything.
  2.  
    We appear to be Deepak in Chopra territory here, using physics-envious word salads to justify the wildest speculation.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    Ha.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    We've got one locally--the "Self-aware Universe" guy.

    Bollocks.
    •  
      CommentAuthorAngus
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    I am reminded of Pauli's wonderful comment: "It's not right. It's not even wrong."
    • CommentAuthorBigOilRep
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    Mathematical masturbation.
    • CommentAuthorAsterix
    • CommentTimeApr 11th 2021
     
    I'm a bit ashamed that I actually purchased his book.