DISCUSS

from scipy import integrate
value, err = integrate.quad(func=lambda x: 2*x, a=10, b=13)
print("Wanna %d?", value)

Yes, "Wanna 69?", cute.  Someone learned elementary integral calculus.

Please

Madoka is definitely one of the best anime ever created.

>>7
I enjoyed it but they're really milking it dry with the merchandising and movies. Who ``re-imagines'' something less than year since the original was released?

>>8
MiLk?

LOLDONGS

from scipy import integrate
value, err = integrate.quad(func=lambda x: 2*x, a=115, b=118)
print("Wanna %d?" % value)

>>8
Anno would turn in his grave.

>>12
he's dead? oh wait, I get what you mean... no actually I don't, stop fucking with my mind? what teh fuck? I don't understand anything about anything.

Someone help me. What the fuck is going on? Everything feels strangely normal. I can't make sense of anything.
For Example, when I drop something on the ground and it falls. I predict it will fall before it falls, and it does. Why should I not assume it will? How do I know it will fall? I think it is because of gravity, and learning. I learned this thing called gravity. Learning and gravity are both something that somehow naturally occur, but I must not think of the reasons why they do, because cause is equal to reason (reason is sum of parts of the cause) and all reasoning eventually leads to infinite regress.
I'm becoming stupider and stupider. My brain is turning into mush.
I often sleep for 3 days and not eat anything.
I should think of things, because it helps me survive and live a happy life. But the more I think, the less I can think because it uses up conscious effort. That means, I should think a little bit, but not much? The world is too complicated for a little yet senile boy like me.
Why can I see, why can I hear? These traits have evolved during billions of years. Why? Because they survive here? Why do they survive here then? Shit, there we go again, infinite regression.
As a child, I was happy because I did not think. Now I am unhappy even when I don't think. No, this is not it, I am unhappy because I am unhappy. Remember, cause is equal to reason? So... to be happy, I would simply need to be happy. I can almost see where this is going. The path in front of me definitely has light, but another part of me is blocking said light. If there was a good reason why that part were blocking it, I would be happy. But no, that reason is just simply the cause itself. It's too complicated because it's too simple! Is that not illogical? Yes, it is illogical. If the world runs on a logical system, I'll eat my own shit. "Take this 3D cellular automaton and scan it for the quantum processes which yield consciousness" my anus. Uncertainty principle my anus. God my anus. Love my anus.

EVERYTHING, MY SHIT STAINED ANUS.

>>14
Take this 3D cellular automaton and scan it for the quantum processes which yield consciousnessI suspect this is highly non-trivial, and even undecidable in general. There is a simpler way to cheat about this using Algorithmic Information Theory, but it's irrelevant to your problem. The best comparison (if not identity) I've seen someone make to the concept of consciousness/observer moment was to that of arithmeticsl truth, yet arithmetical truth is not expressable in arithmetic itself (Tarski's undefinability theorem). This would mean that if you wanted to extract or identify all conscious observers within some structure, such as an Universal Dovetailer, you would never know if you found them all and you would know that no algorithm exists for extracting all possible conscious observers. Yet, the conscious observers select their future states randomly from all the possible future continuations existing within the UD which are consistent with their past histories. Yet, it's very likely that any conscious process has all kinds of unusual continuations, but there is no way for anyone to guarantee any particular continuation that would exist for all conscious processes. Thus you end up with something a bit strange: future is indeterminate (space, time, "reality", "nature", which computation, ...) from the first-person view, yet globally a deterministic 'everything'(beyond QM Many Worlds; more close to the Schmidhuber Ensemble, but not respecting the Universal Prior from the 1st person point of view); most histories (1st person) are countably infinite in length(first person immortality) and the number of finite histories is countably infinite (thus of null measure compared to those finite histories), yet no universal 'Heaven'(shared 1st person plural world continuation; just like our current reality being a shared dream) thanks to Tarski (and Godel), but fragmented ones would exist.

Ignore all that I've said if you don't assume computationalism (or at least functinalism) or if you think classical first-order logic does not hold when applied to (Peano) arithmetic, or if you think the Church Turing Thesis is false or if you think this world is a nonsensical, non-rule-following magical fantasy place. I would probably do well to put in context what the hell I'm talking about (what (meta)physical theory I'm referencing here: I only mentioned the assumptions that lead to it, not the actual theory), but I'll let you think for yourself as it would be too kind for me to give a complete answer to someone who uses that terrible scatological forced meme to end a post.

Of course, I also ignored all that talk about you failing at introspection. That's a statement about yourself and how you model your own emotions/motivation, not a statement about anything else. I introspect all the time without going into depression and I rate my moods between neutral to happy on average. Only you can change your own views abour yourself, but if you don't want to/plan on changing them, or if you lack desire to change them, why talk about them? If you are not satisfied with them, does that not mean you desire to change yourself in some way?

>>15
but how do universal dovetailer run without getting destroyed by other processes, or running another universal dovetailer (and thus ending up in a loop) ? said universal dovetailer must be then a system that can counter any situation, but how will it counter a copy of itself?
im a bit retarded so forgive any silliness here, let a kid learn.

ill just assume creating another UD or a system that can destroy the original UD are not conscious eksperiences then.

what teh fuck, you made me think again, you insidious faggot. i said i do not want to think!

>>16
Only you can change your own views abour yourself, but if you don't want to/plan on changing them, or if you lack desire to change them, why talk about them? If you are not satisfied with them, does that not mean you desire to change yourself in some way?
change yourself in some way?

How the hell i suppposed to change myself
I am nothing but me, BY DEFINITION

>>15
I'll let you think for yourself as it would be too kind for me to give a complete answer to someone who uses that terrible scatological forced meme to end a post.

Does... that mean, you're punishing me? That made me a little happier; thanks!

>>18
You have to change to have consciousness. Consciousness itself implies that new information changes your previous state (and new information is gained, maybe some older information is forgotten, and so on).
>>17
but how do universal dovetailer run without getting destroyed by other processes, Not sure what you mean by destroyed. In the (meta)physical example, UD is assumed to either run on a robust physical universe or exist as an object in arithmetical 'platonia'. Infering its existence involves a fairly long argument where one shows that consciousness can supervene on null physical activity, which is nonsense. Of course, if you believe in classical first order logic (arithmetical sentences being 'true' or 'false'), that alone would be sufficient to implement computation and support the abstract UD. For a more comprehensive view on this hypothesis read:
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/SANE2004MARCHALAbstract.html
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/publications/CC&Q.pdf
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list/msg/e422b8cef00b3aa6
I also think reading "Permutation City" would basically give you the same idea if you think about it hard enough, but the image you'd get would be less complete than that given by those papers. And some simpler thoughts on this: http://lesswrong.com/lw/1zt/the_mathematical_universe_the_map_that_is_the/ http://lesswrong.com/lw/uk/beyond_the_reach_of_god/

or running another universal dovetailer (and thus ending up in a loop) ? said universal dovetailer must be then a system that can counter any situation, but how will it counter a copy of itself?
This appears a bit paradoxal if you don't consider that computation is universal by Church Turing Thesis, and that you only run a computation up to some finite amount of steps when you think about it(although non-halting computations do exist and are quite important, UD is one of them as well, but you can partially compute it).

UD can be thought of as a scheduler which each step adds a new process. It first starts at time 0 with only program 0, at time 1, it runs one instruction of program 0 and program 1, at time 2, it runs one instruction of program 0 and program 1 and program 2, and so on. Now the dovetailer itself would appear early on, let's say at step k, however at step k, you would only execute the first instruction of the dovetailer within the larger dovetailer, thus the computation is always finite. You may have infinities of recursive dovetailer instatiations within each other, but the object is finite at each step, so there's no contradiction, you can even implement it on a simple finite state machine like your computer, although you'll be limited by your memory and CPU time (thus you'll have to stop executing at some particular program).

While UD itself admits a small finite description, the full run-trace of the program is infinite and is typically marked as UD*
Of course, the full UD* trace itself is not an object which is computationally accessible (although it exists as a mathematical 'truth'), no more than a halting oracle would be. Actually, it's not hard to modify the UD to give you omega (Chaitin's constant), and UD* contains it (uncomputable).

ill just assume creating another UD or a system that can destroy the original UD are not conscious eksperiences then.
There is no destruction involved here. Mostly because in the end it turns out the UD is not materially existing (although given some robust multiverse, it could be), but it turns out that matter itself is something we infer to exist from the first-person shared experiences which appear as states in the UD. Note that you don't have to assume the UD existing, but it ends up being the simplest hypothesis possible, and if you refuse to accept it, some strange absurdities should be taken as true (consciousness supervening on null physical activity).

>>20
ome strange absurdities should be taken as true (consciousness supervening on null physical activity).

I'd find it way more strange if anything supervenied consciousness.
I think logic is dependent on consciousness, not the other way around. Why do I think this? Because without consciousness (observer), logic has no meaning, nor does information or entropy.

To clarify, I believe algorithmic logic is the "meta-logical" consequence of observing. And I cannot disprove this to myself.

>>21
Then you just take a solipsist hypothesis, but then you have to explain why the world is orderly, why you can infer the world's existence (whatever it is, not saying it's ontologically primary or not), why you can infer your own brain's existence and the fact that acting on it directly changes your consciousness (try getting drunk or consume some drugs for a demonstration of an altered state of consciousness caused by direct physical changes in your brain).

In this mode, you basically have a neutral monism where both matter and mind arise naturally out of (universal) computational/arithmetical truth, and neither is primary, although they both appear to be (when considering simpler hypothesis).

logic has no meaning, nor does information or entropy.The distilled idea is that rules can be followed consistently to give consistent results (which are not changable on the whim of some magical being or whatever). That's what logic, computation, math is in a nutshell. Church Turing Thesis does show you that a very wide variety of computational models are all equivalent and that computation is universal (this isn't really the case with many other mathematical systems where concrete infinities appear - compution is unique here). A simple example of such an universal system would be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110 . In the end, it doesn't matter what system is primary - they're all equivalent, not only that, axiomatic systems can be encoded within computation and deductions can be made, thus a finite computational system can even reason about infinite systems it has no reason to believe exist.

In this model, consciousness is merely the fact that 'something' is as it is (computational truth). Same is true about the world, although we cannot know how it looks from the 3rd person perspective (omniscient perspective), we can only know of such structures from the 1st person view and we can infer them that way. Given the UD, they are also merely consequence of computation being possible.

Of course, if you reject logic or computation, then nothing can be said about anything at all, it's all trivial nonsense.

s/In this mode/In this model//

>>1,11
>value, err
NO EXCEPTIONS

>>23
I don't reject logic, I just don't believe it's the fundamental cause of everything, I believe observing is.
then you have to explain why the world is orderly
I don't think it is. I think it's absurd as fuck (complex structures arising from simple CA rules, for example). I find the world is full of randomness and chaos. I don't see everything as beautiful.

why you can infer the world's existence
Of course I can, because I created it.

why you can infer your own brain's existence and the fact that acting on it directly changes your consciousness
See above.

you basically have a neutral monism where both matter and mind arise naturally out of (universal) computational/arithmetical truth,
I thought that was what you were saying. I don't think computational/arithmetical truth even exists, makes sense, or matters without something to observe it. Think of a machine that can solve the halting problem somehow. In that case anything that can perceive said machine must not interact with it or the machine becomes algorithmic (and can no longer solve the halting problem). That way, perception can change truth (and mathematical logic).

You believe the universe is algorithmic, that's what I have understood.
I don't.
However, we both believe the universe is deterministic and based on rules.

I think it's absurd as fuck (complex structures arising from simple CA rules, for example). I find the world is full of randomness and chaos. I don't see everything as beautiful.I find that beautiful.
I don't think it is.
Sure, it's a chaos at the quantum level, but as the scale goes up, statistical laws start taking their effect and more complex and interesting structures appear.
Of course I can, because I created it.
See above.
What does 'you created' it mean? Should I take this as a solipsistic position? Sure you don't deny attributing consciousness to other beings similar to you (people in this case).
I don't think computational/arithmetical truth even exists, makes sense, or matters without something to observe it.
The only way to infer anything is through observation. Only through the 1st person view one can actually perceive anything. However, I do take 1st person and 3rd person (inferred) view as being different sides of the same coin.

Think of a machine that can solve the halting problem somehow.
I can imagine it abstractly, but I don't think it can be recognized by any computational system (such as ourselves). Even if I were to say that the universe was hypercomputational (or more), there's no way I could ascertain that as truth. Our nature as finite minds capable only of universal computation does not allow us to know the universe is hypercomputational, without us having hypercomputational minds, whatever that would be, and this is why it makes little sense to posit much stuff beyond UD, at least from our perspective. If hypercomputational minds and truth exists, we can only model it, but we can never know it.
That way, perception can change truth (and mathematical logic).
Is it really change? Not merely discovery?

You believe the universe is algorithmic, that's what I have understood.
Not exactly. I did mention I believe in first-person indeterminacy, which basically falsifies digital physics (locally, not globally). Even if I were not to assume the UD, it would arise naturally out of arithmetical truth, the UD is merely a good deterministic way to look at all possible computational histories.
To clarify, given some past history, me as a conscious being (from 3rd person, a computational process implementing some generalized brain if you wish), I have an indefinite future where a large number of possibilities can exist - this is indeterimistic locally - I cannot know what future I will end up in, but globally it's deterministic as there would merely be copies of me going through all possible futures and diverging from whatever I consider the me as of 'now'.
When I talked about AIT and no global 'Heaven', I also meant that given some data from our environment (such as captured using a camera and stored digitally), if we were to be given unlimited computational resources (unbounded, but finite), the kolmogorov complexity will be so high that it might be random - the reason for this is because we keep accumulating randomness through this indeterimistic process of "splitting"/observation, and even if whatever initial state/laws the universe might have had would have been very simple algorithmically, our (personal) address will likely be algorithmically random. By address I could mean the exact computational state within the UD, or if you want something more classical, the state within some Many Worlds interpretation of QM.