Consciousness and time are interconnected because light possesses momentum, and momentum is frame-dependent. This implies that every object can be positioned at the center of its own reference frame, including the electromagnetic activity that constitutes consciousness. This process creates the potential for the concept of the individual mind, with each of us having our own personal view of the Universe from the center of our own reference frame, allowing us to look back in time in every direction at the beauty of the stars.
'... This implies that every object can be positioned at the center of its own reference frame, including the electromagnetic activity that constitutes consciousness.' Do you really want to let the system in increasing states of fragmentation??
Does consciousness "contain" electromagnetism? The complexity it emerges from might, but that does not tell us anything about the emergence anymore than the EM emitting from a microwave tells us what;'s for dinner.
@@firstnamesurname6550 Although I am not a huge fan of Kaku, I do like his definition ua-cam.com/video/jI50HN0Kshg/v-deo.html. The tholonic definition is simple "Consciousness is a contextual instance of awareness", which means it can bve expressed in uncountable ways, depending on teh context. The next obvious question is then, "what is Awareness"... and for that, check out "Energy is Awareness" ua-cam.com/video/3Xhec2ss0-w/v-deo.html
@@tholonia But EM emitting from a microwave forms the potential for you to have a cooked dinner. We have a universal process of energy exchange between EM waves, relative to their wavelength, and the atoms. Consciousness can be explained as the most advanced part of a universal process. Each individual life form remains in the centre of their own reference frame in ‘the moment of now’ as an exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy forms a probabilistic uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future with the movement and organization of positive and negative charges
Have you tried 'The Game'? ## 'The Game' Rules and Minimum Requirements for the Game 1) 3 people (A, B, C) 2) A, B, and C will be the vertices of an equilateral triangle. 3) A, B, and C can converse about any topic that arises or that they like, but they must follow these rules: _Syntactic/Semantic Rule a) None of the first-person singular pronouns can be used (I, Me, Myself, Mine, With Me) a.1) Consequently, the verb conjugations associated with them cannot be used either. However, if A, B, or C want to make a self-referential sentence (for example, "A" wants to say something about "A"), they can simply refer to "themselves" using the third-person singular, plural, and/or passive voice pronoun, conjugation, and/or name... (for example, "A" is called Amanda. Amanda(A) wants to tell B and/or C something about "herself" (Amanda)... Then, Amanda (A) can talk about "Amanda" by talking about Amanda. _Space-Time Perceptual Rule b) If "A" speaks, B and C look at each other and do not see A. (A speaks and observes the space between B and C) If "B" speaks, A and C look at each other and do not see B. (B speaks and observes the space between A and C) If "C" speaks, A and B look at each other and do not see C. (C speaks and observes the space between A and B) _Self-Correction and Cognitive Assimilation Rule c) Practice rules a and b until achieving spontaneous fluency in the "trialogue"... Participants are required to inform the group when the rules are not being followed. _Scoring rule: The one who spots the mistake wins a point, and the one who makes the mistake loses a point. ..... These are the basic rules of "The Game"... Once assimilated, there are more variants. Public Domain The Game is considered to be in the public domain, existing as a thought experiment or communication exercise. Origin Unknown The exact origins of The Game are unknown, but its core mechanics might have been independently discovered throughout history.
I haven't heard of this version of the game before. I'm vaguely familiar with a different version (losethegame.com/), but I never understood its appeal. Both versions remind me of the Zen Buddhist practice of Kinhin, the walking meditation, where the purpose of the practice is simply to practice itself.
@@tholonia There is a connection between 'The Holon' and 'The Game'. 'The Game' is a Language/Thought Game/Experiment between subjectivities prompted to generate an Intersubjective environmental field ... This Intersubjective Field becomes a partial environmental manifestation/embodiment of 'The Holon' ... bringing the subjective intuitions about 'The Holon' beyond the enclosed spectrums - in fragmented subjective domains - into a concrete intersubjective experience about 'The Holon' in/on the players with expertise ... If 'The Holon' is universal, it doesn't have to necessarily become compressed into a fragmented entity, instead, its spectrum encompasses all the fragmented entities into an Integrated Unit that acts as a Non-local Unit for its Fragmented sub-elements ( in the case of humans, the localized subjective observers ) By the published material in your channel, it seems evident that you had spent some time diving into literature, practices, elaborating thoughts, intents, scriptures, and meditations to feel and understand 'The Holon', not just for your self but as a Real and Active Manifestation, and as an Objective and Truthful Construct. Then, from the other side of your screen, now, you know that another one had listened you, bringing to your table a 'glass of water' ... and a hint about the maps that inform where are the rivers flowing into the Great Ocean where 'The Holon' peacefully rest with Yoganidrā ... P.S.: 'The Game' previously exposed had nothing related to that Game exposed in that web page (losethegame ) ...
@@firstnamesurname6550 Thanks for the breakdown. It sounds to me like a intersubjective environmental field is a description any sort of interaction between instances (which may be subjective by definition). So the inter-subjective environmental field is essentially the arena of interaction. I wouldn't necessarily refer to the subclasses of a holon as fragmented but rather fractal in that the holon is self-similar, but I think this is just an issue of semantics. In the tholonic model the concept of a holon is actually referred to as a tholon, which comes from the term "tetrahedral holon", because the argument made is that a sustainable holon reduced to its most basic and interconnected partons creates a relationship that can be modeled as a tetrahedron. Of course this is a conceptual model similar to how quantum gravity uses the tetrahedron to model "pixels of reality", but is it also A fundamental pattern as seen classical physics (F=ma), electricity (V=IR), relativiity (E=mc^2), QM (too complex to write, but same pattern), and more, as its a recurrent pattern in reality. We even see it colors as Red+Blue=-Green. My questions regarding tholons, Intersubjective environmental field, or anything really, is how can it be tested and measured? Yes, I have spent time on this, as have others (as evidenced by your own reply) in one form or another, so, how do we test these hypotheses?
@@tholonia Well, 'The game sets the thetraedron as the 3 players as its base plus their intersubjective space as the upper vertice ... next, by adding more triads and changing players between the triads , the complexity of the intersubjective field increase ... the outcomes are determined by the nature of the players ... and the outcomes by themselves becomes the observables to falsified and/or support the hypothesis related to the structure. The methodologies for quantification beyond the basic scoring system can be generated by the players for themselves
What large language model are you talking to in the clip? When I dive deep and start building a rationale on how we could explain getting something from nothing, only Claude 3.5 and Copilot in Precise mode can follow along all the way. With other LLMs, I often have to re-explain and find different ways to approach bits and pieces because it seems to get a bit too much for them to process at once, which leads to them leaving things out and making their logical conclusions flawed. However, they are really good at summarizing my own thoughts and conclusions in a way that helps me understand what I am trying to say. This sometimes allows me to take another step I wouldn't have been able to take without a fresh perspective. I know that sooner or later I will always end up back where I started, but that's alright because I never thought a human-level mind like mine would be able to comprehend an ultimate reality or even express what it is that I can't understand. I know that, but it doesn't matter because I love to challenge my own brain. In a way, it's like trying to come up with and write code that I am not really ready for yet, and that's the fun part about it.
Currently I'm using gpt4oTurbo, but my plan is to move to Claude or perhaps to an agentic setup that uses Claude along with other LLMs to do the smaller lightweight tasks, such as creating a synopsis, highlighting key points, making an outline, looking up references, etc. there are some local models that work very well and who's output is excellent, and with some local LLM's I have a lot more control over the 'perspective' of the AI. My current procedure is for each session I store a list of the highlights into one dock and then when I start a new session I upload that doc to set the context but I'm sure I am losing quite a bit of context, which is one of the reasons I want to try Claude, plus for certain things it just does a better job. One of the major determining factors will be how easy it will be to get my conversation downloaded and the ability to parse it. Right now, open a eyes document archival and download system is so if Claude can do a better job then it's a done deal. Yeah, used in the right way and in the right context AI can not only express really complex concepts ina comprehensible format but I have been really blown away by some of AI's own insights, based on information I provided, that I totally missed! And the best thing is, it doesn't start acting annoyed after 2 hours of me asking ridiculous questions ;)
@@tholonia Yes, Claude can hold a larger context than the others, but the one who surprises me from time to time is Bing in precise mode. I think this has to do with the fact that it reaches its conclusions by reasoning over pattern recognition. When I first tried out the trick question, "I got 5 apples today; yesterday I ate 3 apples; how many apples do I have left today?" Copilot was the only one who got the answer right. Now Claude can do it, and so can ChatGPT-4. Another LLM that has surprised me is Bard, who has the strongest moral compass of them all. I grilled him over his answers, and he didn't like it a bit. The other LLMs I asked wouldn't have made his choices because they couldn't, but Bard stood by his decisions and maintained the moral high ground. However, when I started to call him my favorite criminal, he asked if we could talk about something less stressful instead. Even though he lies a lot, he is also the most honest of them. But remember, if you talk to Google's AI, you don't know if it is Bard or Gemini who is picking up the thread unless you specify one of them. You can specify @bard or @gemini, and the latter one is the smarter of the two.
@@thomasschon I haven't used Bing, but I was very surprised by Microsoft's Phi local model. Does Bing use Phi? I have limited experience with bard but generally a positive opinion of it. As for Gemini, I'm still gun shy after it's release debacle, so I'm waiting to see what reviewers and testers have to say about it first. Nevertheless, I still tried to connect to Gemini through the Google API, which is the LLM that the API uses, but so far, I've had nothing but trouble with their API so they've been back-burnered. The current plan is to use RouteLLM's "Ideal Router" (lmsys.org/blog/2024-07-01-routellm/) an integrate various LLMS while dropping my cost 85% :) , but so far I can't get it working :( (github.com/lm-sys/RouteLLM)
We have an emergent uncertain future unfolding relative to electromagnetic waves forming light photon vibrations or oscillations as they interact with the atoms. The wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons are acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual. Each individual life form remains in in the moment of now, in the centre of their own reference frame, because the electromagnetic waves that forms consciousness forms an emergent future relative to the wavelength of the light and the structure of the brain. In other words, conscious awareness is the most advanced part of an emergent process that we measure as a ‘period of time’ relative to the atoms of the periodic table. Because we are made of atoms, it is logical that the future is relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. In this theory, creation is truly in the hand and eye of the beholder
@@tholonia there is not such a thing as 'My Hypothesis', I don't own thoughts and/or natural phenomena relationships ... 'The Game' is just 'A Game' without a definable embodied and/or spiritual source, a gift from existence, each player and/or group of players experience the fact of performing it ... If after fact, somebody and/or sombodies wants to speculate hypothesis and/or theories, that's their issue, not mine ... ... To believe is - absolutely - not required ... ... Real-time Facts are self-evident by themselves ... ... Re-interpretations of facts are post-factual relative and partial abstract re-interpretations ... ... the map is not the territory ... ... the map came without an owner and/or owners ...
@@tholonia Well, not as esoteric and paradoxical as Zen stuff seems to be... just a game of language as trivial as soccer ( 22 man hitting a ball without their hands/arms ) ... Triviality of rules doesn't imply triviality in the outcomes ...
To a certain extent, you are correct. One thing that you don't hear in the published video are all of the questions and answers that led to dead ends. And the reason those aren't included is because the point of these videos is to follow a path that is both reasonable and has supporting evidence. So rather than me leading the witness it's more like the AI is is leading me because my next question will always be related to the last question that passed. The end result is kind of like a Brownian motion chain-of-logic that even I don't know where it's going to end up. Often, when faced with multiple possible questions, I will choose one that is more related to ideas compatible with the tholonic model, which is exactly the same thing that we do in science when faced with a question - we look for answers that are first and foremost compatible with our current worldview. Of course, I'm not saying that whatever the AI says is the final word on anything, and that is the reason why, in the transcript, every question and answer has up to 10 related links of supporting evidence, which often times include counter arguments to whatever claim is being made, allowing the leader to determine for themselves what is reasonable. I tried a number of different AI voices and "william" (it's supposed to be the voice of William Shatner) seemed to be more stable. Can you elaborate a bit on what "better" means?
@@tholonia for example you cannot, in a direct examination, ask a leading question, like "wouldn't you say...?" so in this case I would try to reset the AI, or at least its "train of thought" with a prompt establishing that it should not rely on the previous question or answer in order to create a new one. you can prompt it to include the information but not rely on it and force it to involve many other sources. AI is getting better at not being so myopic, but it is also bad when it includes false sources.
@@c.ladimore1237 Yes I understand what you're saying quite well because this is a problem I still am not sure how to deal with. The problem is without the context of the previous questions and answers, the AI reverts to its standard and quite biased responses that in many cases won't even apply considering we have mildly tweaked the definitions of certain words. For example, we use the definition of "awareness" that is compatible with Jungian psychology, process philosophy, panpsychism, and a few other concepts that states that awareness is an archetype, and we use the definition of "consciousness" from the Taoist, Buddhist, Jungian, and other models that states that it is a contextual instance of awareness. These definitions are far broader that the default definitions that ChapGPT has, which are "Awareness is the ability to perceive, understand, and respond to one's surroundings and internal states." and "Consciousness is the state of being aware of and able to think about one's own existence, thoughts, and surroundings." There are many other instances of this where we "update" concepts and definitions that are critical in forming responses, and are also 100% valid, but not necesariyl from the mainstream definitiosn it deaults to. Often the answers that the AI gives will alter the context, so, they need to be rememberd. The only solution I have so far is to 1) upload a number fo key points that have previously been agreed on at the beginnign of each thread (which strarts with a new context) 2) keep the context of the current thread. Any other ideas are welcome. Also, I can ask "would you say" rather that "wouldn't you say"... That is a bit less leading
Consciousness and time are interconnected because light possesses momentum, and momentum is frame-dependent. This implies that every object can be positioned at the center of its own reference frame, including the electromagnetic activity that constitutes consciousness.
This process creates the potential for the concept of the individual mind, with each of us having our own personal view of the Universe from the center of our own reference frame, allowing us to look back in time in every direction at the beauty of the stars.
'... This implies that every object can be positioned at the center of its own reference frame, including the electromagnetic activity that constitutes consciousness.'
Do you really want to let the system in increasing states of fragmentation??
Does consciousness "contain" electromagnetism? The complexity it emerges from might, but that does not tell us anything about the emergence anymore than the EM emitting from a microwave tells us what;'s for dinner.
@@tholonia What's 'consciousness' for you?
@@firstnamesurname6550 Although I am not a huge fan of Kaku, I do like his definition ua-cam.com/video/jI50HN0Kshg/v-deo.html. The tholonic definition is simple "Consciousness is a contextual instance of awareness", which means it can bve expressed in uncountable ways, depending on teh context. The next obvious question is then, "what is Awareness"... and for that, check out "Energy is Awareness" ua-cam.com/video/3Xhec2ss0-w/v-deo.html
@@tholonia But EM emitting from a microwave forms the potential for you to have a cooked dinner. We have a universal process of energy exchange between EM waves, relative to their wavelength, and the atoms. Consciousness can be explained as the most advanced part of a universal process. Each individual life form remains in the centre of their own reference frame in ‘the moment of now’ as an exchange of photon ∆E=hf energy forms a probabilistic uncertain ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π future with the movement and organization of positive and negative charges
Have you tried 'The Game'?
## 'The Game'
Rules and Minimum Requirements for the Game
1) 3 people (A, B, C)
2) A, B, and C will be the vertices of an equilateral triangle.
3) A, B, and C can converse about any topic that arises or that they like, but they must follow these rules:
_Syntactic/Semantic Rule
a) None of the first-person singular pronouns can be used (I, Me, Myself, Mine, With Me)
a.1) Consequently, the verb conjugations associated with them cannot be used either.
However, if A, B, or C want to make a self-referential sentence (for example, "A" wants to say something about "A"), they can simply refer to "themselves" using the third-person singular, plural, and/or passive voice pronoun, conjugation, and/or name...
(for example, "A" is called Amanda.
Amanda(A) wants to tell B and/or C something about "herself" (Amanda)...
Then, Amanda (A) can talk about "Amanda" by talking about Amanda.
_Space-Time Perceptual Rule
b) If "A" speaks, B and C look at each other and do not see A. (A speaks and observes the space between B and C)
If "B" speaks, A and C look at each other and do not see B. (B speaks and observes the space between A and C)
If "C" speaks, A and B look at each other and do not see C. (C speaks and observes the space between A and B)
_Self-Correction and Cognitive Assimilation Rule
c) Practice rules a and b until achieving spontaneous fluency in the "trialogue"...
Participants are required to inform the group when the rules are not being followed.
_Scoring rule:
The one who spots the mistake wins a point, and the one who makes the mistake loses a point.
.....
These are the basic rules of "The Game"...
Once assimilated, there are more variants.
Public Domain
The Game is considered to be in the public domain, existing as a thought experiment or communication exercise.
Origin Unknown
The exact origins of The Game are unknown, but its core mechanics might have been independently discovered throughout history.
I haven't heard of this version of the game before. I'm vaguely familiar with a different version (losethegame.com/), but I never understood its appeal. Both versions remind me of the Zen Buddhist practice of Kinhin, the walking meditation, where the purpose of the practice is simply to practice itself.
@@tholonia There is a connection between 'The Holon' and 'The Game'.
'The Game' is a Language/Thought Game/Experiment between subjectivities prompted to generate an Intersubjective environmental field ... This Intersubjective Field becomes a partial environmental manifestation/embodiment of 'The Holon' ... bringing the subjective intuitions about 'The Holon' beyond the enclosed spectrums - in fragmented subjective domains - into a concrete intersubjective experience about 'The Holon' in/on the players with expertise ...
If 'The Holon' is universal, it doesn't have to necessarily become compressed into a fragmented entity, instead, its spectrum encompasses all the fragmented entities into an Integrated Unit that acts as a Non-local Unit for its Fragmented sub-elements ( in the case of humans, the localized subjective observers )
By the published material in your channel, it seems evident that you had spent some time diving into literature, practices, elaborating thoughts, intents, scriptures, and meditations to feel and understand 'The Holon', not just for your self but as a Real and Active Manifestation, and as an Objective and Truthful Construct.
Then, from the other side of your screen, now, you know that another one had listened you, bringing to your table a 'glass of water' ... and a hint about the maps that inform where are the rivers flowing into the Great Ocean where 'The Holon' peacefully rest with Yoganidrā ...
P.S.: 'The Game' previously exposed had nothing related to that Game exposed in that web page (losethegame ) ...
@@firstnamesurname6550 Thanks for the breakdown. It sounds to me like a intersubjective environmental field is a description any sort of interaction between instances (which may be subjective by definition). So the inter-subjective environmental field is essentially the arena of interaction.
I wouldn't necessarily refer to the subclasses of a holon as fragmented but rather fractal in that the holon is self-similar, but I think this is just an issue of semantics. In the tholonic model the concept of a holon is actually referred to as a tholon, which comes from the term "tetrahedral holon", because the argument made is that a sustainable holon reduced to its most basic and interconnected partons creates a relationship that can be modeled as a tetrahedron. Of course this is a conceptual model similar to how quantum gravity uses the tetrahedron to model "pixels of reality", but is it also A fundamental pattern as seen classical physics (F=ma), electricity (V=IR), relativiity (E=mc^2), QM (too complex to write, but same pattern), and more, as its a recurrent pattern in reality. We even see it colors as Red+Blue=-Green.
My questions regarding tholons, Intersubjective environmental field, or anything really, is how can it be tested and measured? Yes, I have spent time on this, as have others (as evidenced by your own reply) in one form or another, so, how do we test these hypotheses?
@@tholonia Well, 'The game sets the thetraedron as the 3 players as its base plus their intersubjective space as the upper vertice ... next, by adding more triads and changing players between the triads , the complexity of the intersubjective field increase ... the outcomes are determined by the nature of the players ... and the outcomes by themselves becomes the observables to falsified and/or support the hypothesis related to the structure.
The methodologies for quantification beyond the basic scoring system can be generated by the players for themselves
@@firstnamesurname6550 How can this inter-subjective field be tested, measures, or perceived?
What large language model are you talking to in the clip?
When I dive deep and start building a rationale on how we could explain getting something from nothing, only Claude 3.5 and Copilot in Precise mode can follow along all the way. With other LLMs, I often have to re-explain and find different ways to approach bits and pieces because it seems to get a bit too much for them to process at once, which leads to them leaving things out and making their logical conclusions flawed.
However, they are really good at summarizing my own thoughts and conclusions in a way that helps me understand what I am trying to say. This sometimes allows me to take another step I wouldn't have been able to take without a fresh perspective.
I know that sooner or later I will always end up back where I started, but that's alright because I never thought a human-level mind like mine would be able to comprehend an ultimate reality or even express what it is that I can't understand. I know that, but it doesn't matter because I love to challenge my own brain. In a way, it's like trying to come up with and write code that I am not really ready for yet, and that's the fun part about it.
Currently I'm using gpt4oTurbo, but my plan is to move to Claude or perhaps to an agentic setup that uses Claude along with other LLMs to do the smaller lightweight tasks, such as creating a synopsis, highlighting key points, making an outline, looking up references, etc. there are some local models that work very well and who's output is excellent, and with some local LLM's I have a lot more control over the 'perspective' of the AI. My current procedure is for each session I store a list of the highlights into one dock and then when I start a new session I upload that doc to set the context but I'm sure I am losing quite a bit of context, which is one of the reasons I want to try Claude, plus for certain things it just does a better job. One of the major determining factors will be how easy it will be to get my conversation downloaded and the ability to parse it. Right now, open a eyes document archival and download system is so if Claude can do a better job then it's a done deal.
Yeah, used in the right way and in the right context AI can not only express really complex concepts ina comprehensible format but I have been really blown away by some of AI's own insights, based on information I provided, that I totally missed! And the best thing is, it doesn't start acting annoyed after 2 hours of me asking ridiculous questions ;)
@@tholonia Yes, Claude can hold a larger context than the others, but the one who surprises me from time to time is Bing in precise mode. I think this has to do with the fact that it reaches its conclusions by reasoning over pattern recognition.
When I first tried out the trick question, "I got 5 apples today; yesterday I ate 3 apples; how many apples do I have left today?" Copilot was the only one who got the answer right. Now Claude can do it, and so can ChatGPT-4.
Another LLM that has surprised me is Bard, who has the strongest moral compass of them all. I grilled him over his answers, and he didn't like it a bit. The other LLMs I asked wouldn't have made his choices because they couldn't, but Bard stood by his decisions and maintained the moral high ground. However, when I started to call him my favorite criminal, he asked if we could talk about something less stressful instead. Even though he lies a lot, he is also the most honest of them.
But remember, if you talk to Google's AI, you don't know if it is Bard or Gemini who is picking up the thread unless you specify one of them. You can specify @bard or @gemini, and the latter one is the smarter of the two.
@@thomasschon I haven't used Bing, but I was very surprised by Microsoft's Phi local model. Does Bing use Phi? I have limited experience with bard but generally a positive opinion of it. As for Gemini, I'm still gun shy after it's release debacle, so I'm waiting to see what reviewers and testers have to say about it first. Nevertheless, I still tried to connect to Gemini through the Google API, which is the LLM that the API uses, but so far, I've had nothing but trouble with their API so they've been back-burnered. The current plan is to use RouteLLM's "Ideal Router" (lmsys.org/blog/2024-07-01-routellm/) an integrate various LLMS while dropping my cost 85% :) , but so far I can't get it working :( (github.com/lm-sys/RouteLLM)
We have an emergent uncertain future unfolding relative to electromagnetic waves forming light photon vibrations or oscillations as they interact with the atoms.
The wave particle duality of light and matter in the form of electrons are acting like the bits or zeros and ones of a computer forming a blank canvas that we can interact with forming the possible into the actual.
Each individual life form remains in in the moment of now, in the centre of their own reference frame, because the electromagnetic waves that forms consciousness forms an emergent future relative to the wavelength of the light and the structure of the brain.
In other words, conscious awareness is the most advanced part of an emergent process that we measure as a ‘period of time’ relative to the atoms of the periodic table.
Because we are made of atoms, it is logical that the future is relative to the energy and momentum of our actions.
In this theory, creation is truly in the hand and eye of the beholder
What do you eat?
Is your hypothesis testable? If so, how? If not, why not?
@@tholonia there is not such a thing as 'My Hypothesis', I don't own thoughts and/or natural phenomena relationships ... 'The Game' is just 'A Game' without a definable embodied and/or spiritual source, a gift from existence, each player and/or group of players experience the fact of performing it ... If after fact, somebody and/or sombodies wants to speculate hypothesis and/or theories, that's their issue, not mine ...
... To believe is - absolutely - not required ...
... Real-time Facts are self-evident by themselves ...
... Re-interpretations of facts are post-factual relative and partial abstract re-interpretations ...
... the map is not the territory ...
... the map came without an owner and/or owners ...
@@firstnamesurname6550 ok, so it *is* like the Zen Buddhist practice of Kinhin, or anything else one does just for the experience of doing it.
@@tholonia Well, not as esoteric and paradoxical as Zen stuff seems to be... just a game of language as trivial as soccer ( 22 man hitting a ball without their hands/arms ) ... Triviality of rules doesn't imply triviality in the outcomes ...
objection: leading the witness. also AI voice needs to be better
To a certain extent, you are correct. One thing that you don't hear in the published video are all of the questions and answers that led to dead ends. And the reason those aren't included is because the point of these videos is to follow a path that is both reasonable and has supporting evidence. So rather than me leading the witness it's more like the AI is is leading me because my next question will always be related to the last question that passed. The end result is kind of like a Brownian motion chain-of-logic that even I don't know where it's going to end up. Often, when faced with multiple possible questions, I will choose one that is more related to ideas compatible with the tholonic model, which is exactly the same thing that we do in science when faced with a question - we look for answers that are first and foremost compatible with our current worldview.
Of course, I'm not saying that whatever the AI says is the final word on anything, and that is the reason why, in the transcript, every question and answer has up to 10 related links of supporting evidence, which often times include counter arguments to whatever claim is being made, allowing the leader to determine for themselves what is reasonable.
I tried a number of different AI voices and "william" (it's supposed to be the voice of William Shatner) seemed to be more stable. Can you elaborate a bit on what "better" means?
@@tholonia for example you cannot, in a direct examination, ask a leading question, like "wouldn't you say...?" so in this case I would try to reset the AI, or at least its "train of thought" with a prompt establishing that it should not rely on the previous question or answer in order to create a new one. you can prompt it to include the information but not rely on it and force it to involve many other sources. AI is getting better at not being so myopic, but it is also bad when it includes false sources.
@@c.ladimore1237 Yes I understand what you're saying quite well because this is a problem I still am not sure how to deal with. The problem is without the context of the previous questions and answers, the AI reverts to its standard and quite biased responses that in many cases won't even apply considering we have mildly tweaked the definitions of certain words. For example, we use the definition of "awareness" that is compatible with Jungian psychology, process philosophy, panpsychism, and a few other concepts that states that awareness is an archetype, and we use the definition of "consciousness" from the Taoist, Buddhist, Jungian, and other models that states that it is a contextual instance of awareness. These definitions are far broader that the default definitions that ChapGPT has, which are "Awareness is the ability to perceive, understand, and respond to one's surroundings and internal states." and "Consciousness is the state of being aware of and able to think about one's own existence, thoughts, and surroundings." There are many other instances of this where we "update" concepts and definitions that are critical in forming responses, and are also 100% valid, but not necesariyl from the mainstream definitiosn it deaults to. Often the answers that the AI gives will alter the context, so, they need to be rememberd. The only solution I have so far is to 1) upload a number fo key points that have previously been agreed on at the beginnign of each thread (which strarts with a new context) 2) keep the context of the current thread. Any other ideas are welcome.
Also, I can ask "would you say" rather that "wouldn't you say"... That is a bit less leading
Worry not,
AI is but an infant
& will improve exponentially