Georgina Woodward
I do not think it is helpful to calll - what we think -due o analysis of our sensory perception,'realiiy, and also call observation independent,existing things 'reality'. They are categoricallty different and need to be descibed as such. In order to avoid ambiguity and confusion
It is not posdsible to discuss iand deconstruct deas, without the language to do so. if all barriers are called walls how do we differentiate a fence from a brick or stone structure
Correcting the spelling errors, I tried to correct earlier but ended up worse, as I can no longer edit the post;:
I do not think it is helpful to call - what we think -due to analysis of our sensory perception,'realiity, and also call observation independent, existing things 'reality'. They are categoricallty different and need to be descibed as such. In order to avoid ambiguity and confusion
Georgina Woodward
It is not possible to discuss and deconstruct ideas, without the language to do so. if all barriers are called walls how do we differentiate a fence from a brick or stone structure
Georgina Woodward
Re your “nowadays AI and camera working together could performsuch a feat”:
Do you or don’t you understand the difference between real-world real-life mass (or any other category of information) and the symbolic representation of real-world real-life mass (or any other category of information)?
Do you or don’t you understand the difference between real-world real-life mass, and the symbols used to represent real-world real-life mass? E.g. the following line:
(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE
consists of symbols, on paper or screen, that represent a particular real-world real-life mass. This same real-world real-life mass could also be symbolically represented using voltages, transistors and circuits in a computer. But the symbols are NOT, I repeat NOT, the actual real-world real-life mass.
You continually fail to understand that what is happening in a computer merely uses voltages, transistors and circuits to symbolically represent something else: the symbols (the voltages, transistors and circuits) are NOT, I repeat NOT, the thing they are representing.
Your “AI and camera working together” is NOT performing feats that actual real-life eyes are doing, though computer code can potentially be used to REPRESENT (in a general way) what actual real-life eyes are doing.
Are you able to understand the distinction?
Lorraine Ford
I was just saying that AI is able to give the identity of 'learned' images. That means of identification could be combined with a camera producing a photographic product. i did not say the combination works exactly like eyes and vision.
Georgina Woodward
You went on and on and on and on about a rooster.
But I’m guessing that you never noticed the similarity between
the rooster who mistook an oil bottle for a living thing,
and
the masses of people who mistake a box of wires and circuits for something that is conscious? 
(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE Lorraine Ford
i understabd this a stymbolic representation and not an actual mass. One might say,like an autobiography is not a person There is however some element of truth in it.The weiting does not show the whole truth, that makes the person.i think we lost some important distinction by getting rid of the standard kilogram. Mass is related to existence as fermion matter, and hence atomic mass. The effect it has on the environment is observation independent. The other side of the equation is a measurement product. A result obtained because of the unnatural relationship betreen measured and measuring apparatus/ To say that the REPRESENTATION OF emergent vaue and the REPRESENTATION OF intrinsic can be equated and further qualified by IS TRUE is not entirely truthful.
Georgina Woodward
Some likness yes I can agree with that ,but equal, not so.
Lorraine Ford
(continuing the above merry theme)
The Shtetl-Optimized blog is a good example of a poultry shed where the roosters loudly crow that the box of wires and circuits is conscious.
But just like the failures of analysis of Georgina’s fixated rooster who mistook an oil bottle for a living thing,
these human roosters have fixated on superficial appearances, and have failed to analyse the very basics of how the box of wires and circuits is made to work.
The essence of the box of wires and circuits is that circuits, transistors, and voltages, together with computer programs, are used to represent something else: man-made symbols. In other words, the circuits, transistors, and voltages, together with the computer programs, are themselves man-made symbols used to represent other man-made symbols.
These “other” man-made symbols are things like mathematical equations, number symbols, and symbols for logical connectives (these logical symbols are used to represent (e.g.) analysis, collation, and identification).
But it is not symbols all the way down, turtle upon turtle, with a turtle at the base. At the base is conscious experience, which is not a symbol, but a thing that human beings can only represent with symbols (words and sentences; logical connective symbols, etc.).
Georgina Woodward
Ii think the original statement ought to have been (m = 0.511 MeV/c squared) if complying with mainstream notation for mass
It makes mass which is a property related to number of fermion particles the same as a measured energy value though energy has no fermions. Equivalence belongs to particular explanatory framework- namely Rrelativity. Though the James Web telescope calls ito question the Big Bang, consequence of Relativity,. I have called into question the light clock argument thought experiment demonstration of Special Relativity and elsewhere General Relativity. By proposing the sensory data in the Uni-temporal environment are the reason for the appearance of space time and space time continuum, not slices of still existing material present of a reference frame, both are in doubt. in the RICP Framwwork energy is change or potential for change and is a foundatioal quality of the universe as is existence but they are not eqquivalent in what they are.
Lorraine Ford
(continuing my previous comment)
Re the human use of symbols, which were created by human beings, and which are continually used by human beings to represent all aspects of the world, so much so that human beings are barely conscious that they are in fact using tools (symbols) all the time:
Contrary to what Georgina seems to be saying, the human use of symbols to represent the world has been very successful. It works: spacecraft have successfully been sent to Mars.
Re “what Georgina seems to be saying”:
It is difficult to decipher the symbols because the spelling, grammar, punctuation, and written content, is always messy and disorganised, and uses special terms (like “Uni-temporal”, and “still existing material present”), the meaning of which are only known to herself.
Lorraine Ford
Uni-Temporal ; the Uni, part of the word means just one , temporal means to do with time. A Unitemporal model has no geometric time dimension. All _existing _hings are at the same and only time of Object, material, Basment level, Source reality. Accounting for the different times seen by different reference frames by allowing the emergent time exception for observers generating the semblance of the Source from recieved input sensory data.
Still existing is used to indicate the situation that something that has in materially reality happened but contiues to materially exist ( Is not past and consequently No more)) It can therefore be re-experienced again. Time travel and paradoxes arising are a consequence of utilizing an explanation with a time dimension. Not incurred with my explanatory framework.
i am not arguing that symblic language is not useful when used carefully to express ideas. Lorraine's use of IS TRUe does not make the thing repressented objectivly true, Matter might be desroyred releasing energy.The matter is not therfore euivalent . Anymore than an ice sculpture is equivalentto a puddle. IS TRUE written following a misleading statement, doesn't help
The world is differentiated; therefore the world must differentiate. There is a necessary knowledge/ information aspect at the foundations of the world.
Our world is differentiated into different fundamental categories, like mass or position, and different numbers that apply to these categories. Therefore, it is logically necessary for our world to have a fundamental-level knowledge/ information aspect to enable the world to differentiate/ discern difference in its own categories/ relationships, and numbers.
This knowledge/ information aspect of the world can only be represented via the use of logical connective symbols. So, knowledge/ information is always represented in the following type of format:
(category = number) IS TRUE .
Or
(category = number) IS FALSE.
So, it is necessary that our world can differentiate a situation where (what we would represent as)
(m = 0.511 MeV) IS TRUE
from a situation where (what we would represent as)
(m = 105.7 MeV) IS TRUE.
(or more correctly, as Georgina pointed out:
It is necessary that our world can differentiate a situation where (what we would represent as)
(m = 0.511 MeV/c2) IS TRUE
from a situation where (what we would represent as)
(m = 105.7 MeV/c2) IS TRUE.)
Contrary to the idea that a mathematical world wouldn’t have a knowledge aspect, in fact, any differentiated mathematical world needs a knowledge/ information aspect. When doing mathematics, using mathematical symbols, the mathematician plays the part of the necessary knowledge/ information aspect.
The point I’m getting to is this:
The potentially experimentally measurable aspect of the world is representable as (e.g.):
m = 0.511 MeV/c2,
but the corresponding knowledge/ consciousness aspect of the world would be represented as:
(m = 0.511 MeV/c2) IS TRUE.
The “IS TRUE” aspect of the world is not measurable; the knowledge/ information/ consciousness aspect of the world can’t be measured.
This contrasts with the flattened-down world of computers where voltages are used to represent absolutely everything (e.g. categories, numbers, logical connectives). Everything, including the voltages that represent “IS TRUE” is potentially measurable in a very much slowed-down computer.
Lorraine Ford
Mass as a quality in material reality refers to the way an object having that mass responds gravitationally and inertially,. Relationships between the object and the environment , and vice versa. That is not equivalent to a single number. Inclsion of a subjective judgement doesn't help. The truth of the statement as a representation of material , observation indpendent reality is or isn't true without human judgement. What is thought will be influenced by the explanatory framework assumed to apply and not necessarily considered further. 'Proportioal to' would be closer than 'equivalent'.
Georgina Woodward
Re the strange, special terms that you have invented in your "explanatory framework":
There is no such thing as your “Uni-temporal environment”; there is no such thing as your “still existing material present”, and there is no such thing as your “material reality”.
Similarly, there are no such things as your “Relationships between the object and the environment”. In physics, there are only relationships between categories of information; there are no relationships between objects.
Lorraine Ford
This thread is called "Alterativwe models of reality'" . As Zeeya Merali says"If you have an unconventional, alternative model of reality, then this is the place to discuss it. " [e was an error try[mg to expla[n the [deas [nvolved to you. I'll not trouble you further.
Georgina Woodward
I am CRITICISING your model of reality.
Your model of reality does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny.
People will always criticise models of reality, and they need to be able to stand up to criticism.
You are claiming that things that don't exist, DO exist: e.g. “Uni-temporal environment” is not a thing that exists.