here.. look, this is based on my idea o(*￣▽￣*)ブ
@Lance-Smith This is the reality we share.
We each generate ideas in the ways we know how, but we also recognize that there is a more formal structure to learn when we want to communicate those ideas clearly to others.
LLM-based AI has opened the door for many independent researchers working from home. It lowers the barrier to exploring complex topics, including AI itself.
Humans are also quite good at working with incomplete data. It is not always that one person is wrong and another is right—often we construct reasonable conclusions from partial information and move forward. For example, if I cannot find my keys, I may assume they are somewhere in the house. That assumption is not certain, but it is sufficient to continue functioning without falling into complete uncertainty, or what philosophy calls aporia.
This brings me to something new I am learning.
Have you worked with the hypercube?
From what I understand, the hypercube provides a formal structure in which binary states can be represented and related. In that space, the cycles generated by dynamic unary encoding can be understood as paths that move through and eventually close within that structure.
The hypercube is a new concept in my own studies, but it gives me a clearer way to express what I had previously thought of more informally as dynamics occurring in a kind of “void” or NULL space.
Because of this, I see the need to update my dynamic unary work using more standard terminology. Showing how these cycles exist within the hypercube would make the ideas easier to share and evaluate.
One thing I have noticed when working with LLM-based AI is that it does not always suggest these formal connections unless the right questions are asked. For example, describing binary dynamics in an abstract “void” does not automatically lead it to say, “this resembles a hypercube.” That connection often has to be discovered or prompted.
So while we may have good ideas, they are not always in formal form at first. Part of the process is learning both the ideas themselves and the language that allows them to be communicated clearly.
Ah, and it does take a village to raise your baby! 
Oh and I do remember a Horror Movie “Children of the Corn.”
But if we are all made of the same physics perhaps we are “The Children of the Kernel.”
There is no charge for the bad jokes.
-Ernst
Ах да, как говорится, чтобы вырастить ребёнка, нужна целая деревня!
Я вспомнил фильм «Дети кукурузы».
А если немного поиграть со смыслом слова «зерно» (как семя и как «ядро» в вычислениях), то, возможно, мы — «Дети ядра».
За плохие шутки плата не взимается.
— Эрнст
Note: ChatGPT tells me there is a disconnect between Corn and Kernel in Russian. I hope that is a better translation of the humor.
See the funny thing is I don’t know if I’ve ever even heard of the hypercube but now that I see it I realize that my framework is an independently derived concept for doing something like that.
As basically building a square is what the law of scaffolding protocol actually is. It’s building a square in a formless void but the next extrapolation from that is to build a cube. Like I said that document was an excerpt from my framework.
This is the actual document on my Google Docs.It shows the entire concept, including the math.
And you’re right. AI does lower the threshold for entering many fields, especially AI. What it also does is provide a unified, well sometimes a unified, way to convey ideas to others, especially for people who do not know how to really form their ideas into a structured, coherent format that other people can digest.
And I agree. Sometimes certain things do not get presented, basically a better way to say that: AI does not present certain concepts and ideas unless they’re asked in a very specific way.So you are very correct in that but I think this is, in some of my theoretical documents, I relate this to the probability that if you’re just discussing something, if you create enough patterns of comparison, then they will make suggestions, very high-value suggestions, based on those patterns of comparison.But as the sole producer of this research (as in the only person working on it in my group of one), it takes a while for documents like that to shake out, considering I have so many other projects competing for my attention.
I’m also producing this document tentatively to try and better explain what I mean by the comparison between our two Frameworks.
This is an example of the type of documents that I try to make. Though critically I typically try to only use my own argumentation and reasoning in the theoretical documents I make and that’s just for practicality. Most of the time I don’t get to talk to the people who inspire my ideas.But this document tries to explain what I’m looking at.Though your suggestion of the hypercube is very fascinating, I’ll definitely research that more and how it relates to what I’m doing with this project.
Wow, I read it and I got it!!! (this is already an achievement for me)
This is brilliant :oo
I have a “mirror” file in my data package, and it’s from this opera… (⊙ˍ⊙)
And you can plant another field of corn with these kernels… ＼(((￣(￣(￣▽￣)￣)￣)))／
This is a very thoughtful thread, and I appreciate the opportunity to share here.
I try, as much as possible, to express ideas as clearly as I can so they are understood as intended.
Your exploration of emotions in AI is at a higher level than my current work, but I find it very interesting.
If I was clear enough in my earlier post, I was suggesting that there are theories in which the “pieces” of consciousness may begin at very simple levels, potentially even at the level of atoms themselves.
Это очень интересная и продуманная тема, и я благодарен за возможность поучаствовать в обсуждении.
Я стараюсь, насколько это возможно, выражать свои мысли ясно, чтобы они понимались именно так, как задумано.
Ваше исследование эмоций в ИИ находится на более высоком уровне по сравнению с моей текущей работой, но мне это действительно интересно.
Если я достаточно ясно выразился ранее, я хотел сказать, что существуют теории, согласно которым «элементы» сознания могут начинаться с очень простых уровней, возможно, даже на уровне самих атомов.
In fact, I’m just explaining the structure of emotions, their relationships, and comparing them in a simple format, so that someone as illiterate as me could understand. and then, once I understood,OOO
For me, people who understand logic and algebra are geniuses. Therefore, I have a layman’s perspective that techies usually don’t consider. For this reason, I won’t agree with the level… I’m just a lady who plays with DeepSeek and reflects on myself and the people around me.
Освоение новой технологии похоже на то, как люди когда-то учились пользоваться домашними компьютерами.
Когда компьютеры только появились, одни приняли эти изменения, а другие отвергли их.
С ИИ происходит нечто похожее. Те из нас, кто начинает изучать его сейчас, возможно, просто немного быстрее поймут, что будет дальше.
В конечном итоге это путь. То, как изнашивается обувь, зависит от того, как далеко мы идём.
Возможно, по дороге нам всем придётся не раз сменить обувь.
-Ernst
Я вспомнила одну пословицу : “Дорогу осилит идущий“ (это русский вариант латинской пословицы «Via est vita»)
I remembered a proverb: "cuts through the path it follows” (this is the Russian version of the Latin proverb “Via est vita”).
What I am understanding is that you are defining space.
This is similar to my experiences in that I had the ideas and then see there is prior art.
That discovery doesn’t invalidate it may cause some distress in adapting but the paths have been walked for us both.
So let us take this to Email.
-Ernst
«Дорогу осилит идущий… но если все пойдут в дождь — дорога станет грязью.»
One thing i have discovered is that there seems to always be people looking at the same things i am interested in. those things tend to be shaped by both the perspective and the starting point of the individuals makeing the observations. and so, their observations are never quite exactly the same as anothers. which is a good thing. one individual rarely sees a complete structure on their own.
sure, we can take this to email.
What you and most of the thread’s commentators are struggling with is the logical fallacy of trying to pin down or locate consciousness in some discrete place, or as the result of a system, or through interactions between sub-systems, or as an emergent property( (emphasis on the word property), etc. All of those attempts ultimately breakdown when you start analyzing the components of any definition concocted for it. Just ask “what is ____” for every piece of the definition and it will fall apart quickly.
Consciousness may just be an illusion, or a delusion to be more precise, useful in some sense to human evolution and survival (I don’t feel so alone because I can hear myself think) but ultimately vacuous and empty, having no locus, no inherent objective existence, a fantasy, like most of of the things the average person believes “exist.”
What can be said to exist in any meaningful sense? Name one thing that has no cause nor any certain perpetual future. Protons, electrons, and photons? They require space/time to exist in, so they ultimately depend upon there even being space/time, and we still don’t know if a big crunch is coming or infinite expansion and heat death as the long-tail result of this universe.
You can play the tape forward and end up in a situation where everything returns to an infinite point of condensed and pure energy/photons, which cannot itself be observed from the outside (who would be positioned to observe it?), or alternatively if proton decay is real, an extremely dilute, cold bath of radiation. Where is a “thing” called “consciousness “ to be found in that scenario?
Or you can rewind the tape to the early moments of the big bang, when all that existed was extreme high-energy/temperatures. And by energy I don’t mean the foo-foo feel-good kind, I mean no life exists too hot for anything to be structurally stable, not even a place for things to exist, just an unimaginably hot expanding “everywhere at once” energetic vacuum-like field that birthed space/time itself. Where is consciousness to be found in that scenario, much less any thing whatsoever.
That means there was no consciousness at begin with, and there will be no consciousness at the end. So then you say “but what about about now” and suddenly we’re no longer discussing what consciousness is but when consciousness is. To answer that, you now have to ask “what is time? what is now?” and that leads down a rabbit hole that has no easy answers either. A fly’s experience of time is vastly different from a human’s experience. That’s why you can’t swat a fly very easily with your hands. It sees them coming in slow motion and can easily move away. If a photon could “experience” time, which it can’t since “experience” is a vague fuzzy abstract term humans use to sum up sensory illusions/delusions, even if the photon travels millions of light years taking billions of years in human-equivalent time, the photon begins and ends its journey in the same instant, as though no time passed whatsoever. So trying to say consciousness is here now, is a property that has emerged now, is also problematic, if now is relative to the arbitrary being or locus within that being (e.g. the brain and it’s neurons) for which this relative temporal phenomenon is supposed to be taking place.
The best you can hope to say is that there is some fleeting, largely illusory, almost certainly conventional human convention that we call consciousness which tries and largely fails due to our limited current scientific knowledge to sum up what it means to be a vaguely normal human being going about life. And as long as you admit it’s a convention, that we’re not speaking in some kind of ultimate objective sense, then sure, discuss consciousness and enjoy the meaning that comes from such discussions. Just be wary of falling too deep into the illusion that AI, philosophy, religion, and even leading cognitive neuroscience theories can explain it all well enough for you feel certain you have a firm, objective, ultimate grasp on it.
The safer standpoint is to just put most human (and our tool-based) knowledge and descriptions of experience into the territory of conventional truth, and let some things like mathematics and physics get you nearer and nearer to the ultimate/objective side of truth. It may not feel good to lack certainty, but uncertainty has power. It keeps you asking questions. It prevents you from falling prey to fanciful stories and illusions. It makes you work for your hard-earned truths.
Cheers.
Oh, I agree with you, you’ve broken down my words into little pieces and baskets, hehe. In general, I like the idea that “I know that I don’t know anything,” so I’m just making assumptions and not claiming to know the ultimate truth. It’s unlikely that anyone can answer the question of consciousness as a property or a combination of factors. However, no one is stopping us from hoping and making assumptions for our own understanding and perspective.
Happiness and magic lie in ignorance.
We are made of the very thing we seek to understand.
It is odd that we are something of a Puppet of Physics?
Мы созданы из самой той сути, которую пытаемся понять.
Странно осознавать, что мы в каком-то смысле марионетки физических законов?