CommieBastard
11th February 2005, 02:57
This is a conjecture i recently discussed with a friend on msn, I am going to cut and paste the relevant sections.
I admit the limits of my knowledge in all of the fields discussed, and welcome being corrected in any particulars.
Didn't have the time to edit it properly, will maybe do so in future. Either way, though disjointed i think you may still be interested in it
right, first off is string theory i guess. basically it's premise is that the universe is composed of strings of energy, and that these string's interactions are what produces physical effects. The strings apparently overlap, and it's possible that there are multiple overlapping universes, that interact on some level, but which don't seem to effect our reality in any meaningful way
next is neural networks. normal computers run linear calculations, you put a set of inputs in, you get a definite set of outputs out. This is very useful for certain kinds of calculations, like mathematics or complex programming. neural networks run on a different principle. basically you dont need to input 0's and 1's, the neural network can produce results in analogue, that is to say on a scale. i cant demonstrate it properly without a diagram, but ill try. neural networks work on the basis of analogue, so their calculations are on the basis of levels of refinement. thats why we can work out the world and objects in detail, or look at them generally. we can also think conceptually in different levels of refinement. our level of refinement is constrained by the complexity of our network, which is in turn constrained by it's size. so, a neural network of different sizes is useful for different purposes, a small one can work out things in greater detail, but cant make large generalisations, whereas a large one can work out greater generalisations but not greater detail. in order to get around this it would be theoretically possible to make an enourmas neural network that is split up into smaller parts, that reference back to the mainframe only at certain times.
so, to explain in analogy to buddhism our life is when our neural network is being used to run computational processes
we interact with other sections of the neural network via our inputs and outputs with a virtual reality that the overall reality creates as a medium for our interaction
this is when we communicate, either verbally, or by moving objects, such as textually or with other signs
were all smaller networks in a biggr one
when we die
our neural network stops simulating our personal virtual reality, and stops referecning with the overall one
it begins to download it's calculations into the overall mainframe of our universe
once it has completed this, it becomes a part of a greater section of the neural network
that is set to the task of processing this date
this is basically the consciousness of our universe
in time, the neural network might get reassigned to another part of it to continue a new process
here is another tie in with buddhism
the neural network is not consistent in it;s quality
so it assigns the best parts of it to the most important tasks
the worst parts get the lower tasks
right, we are in the network of life, that is simulating our 'physical' 'material' reality (that is actually virtual).
nirvana is when we become conscious of the overall consciousness, and move into it
can we reach the universal consciusness without dying? it might be possible if a particular section of the network performs outstandingly it rewritees the universe to move it into better purposes
so thats when we become a part of the overall process of the universe
what is the goals of the performance
maybe to find the meaning of life? who knows. I dont think we can in our level of consciousness. maybe only the multiversal consciousness knows the real purpose. maybe the multiverse is contained in a multiverse and it goes on recusively for at least a while
maybe only the highest level knows the real goals
maybe even they dont
afterall, we are talking about interaction between neural networks that can run the same equation and get different results
you may be aware that in child psychology they have shown that very young children interact with their experiences along pretty much scientific principles of experimentation and reproduction of results
once we learn language, we have a new source for information than our own computational processes
our computational processes running on their scientific basis recognise the benefits of this source, and so seek it out. However, as society stands children are taught very early on about authority and obedience
authority varies, but it has some common principles
that to gain new beneficial information, one has to accept blindly the validity of certain behaviours (where behaviour can include expressing or holding beliefs)
and also the stick and the carrot
if you do not comply in believing, then they employ this method. Your scientific principles tell you to do something that gives positive results, and avoid things that give negative results
this is where it relates to the previous conjecture on the nature of the universe
it is the case that because the neural networks get different results
to gain some form of co-ordination it requires authority
on whether they are capable of coming to the same conclusions when enacting computational processes, i.e. they have to agree complicitly on a wide plethora of matters this is what authority simulates because we act as if we do agree even though we dont
if we were able to find a set of inputs that lead to the same outputs, we would have found grounds for agreement. Basically, im talking about the meaning of life
because if we have a set of principles that cannot be doubted by human minds, then we would not have to force one of the plethora of conjectures on our children, we could communicate it, and they would develop in their neural processes almost optimally
though the authority and obedience paradigms are accepted, and then hinder the scientific paradigm of learning, the scientific paradigm is reintroduced later in life once it can be set into the context of the reinforced (by this time) overall paradigms of authority and obedience. Such that though a person is capable of rational doubt, they have an enourmas set of material to work through with
their doubt once they gain it, and they cannot get to the root point without an awful lot of introspection
because only introspection leads to the real truth
information from the outside cannot be trusted unless verified by information from the inside.
this is what meditation is for in buddhism and why buddhist monks contemplate the universe
i remember someone said that in the past it was noted that great buddhist sages agreed on an incredible number of matters, whilst lower sages tended to disagree more the lower down you went
maybe early on the universal consciousness realised it needed authority, but it was flawed, so it set some of its neural networks to try and work out other means of running the comnunication i.e. a search for universal or indubitable knowledge
I admit the limits of my knowledge in all of the fields discussed, and welcome being corrected in any particulars.
Didn't have the time to edit it properly, will maybe do so in future. Either way, though disjointed i think you may still be interested in it
right, first off is string theory i guess. basically it's premise is that the universe is composed of strings of energy, and that these string's interactions are what produces physical effects. The strings apparently overlap, and it's possible that there are multiple overlapping universes, that interact on some level, but which don't seem to effect our reality in any meaningful way
next is neural networks. normal computers run linear calculations, you put a set of inputs in, you get a definite set of outputs out. This is very useful for certain kinds of calculations, like mathematics or complex programming. neural networks run on a different principle. basically you dont need to input 0's and 1's, the neural network can produce results in analogue, that is to say on a scale. i cant demonstrate it properly without a diagram, but ill try. neural networks work on the basis of analogue, so their calculations are on the basis of levels of refinement. thats why we can work out the world and objects in detail, or look at them generally. we can also think conceptually in different levels of refinement. our level of refinement is constrained by the complexity of our network, which is in turn constrained by it's size. so, a neural network of different sizes is useful for different purposes, a small one can work out things in greater detail, but cant make large generalisations, whereas a large one can work out greater generalisations but not greater detail. in order to get around this it would be theoretically possible to make an enourmas neural network that is split up into smaller parts, that reference back to the mainframe only at certain times.
so, to explain in analogy to buddhism our life is when our neural network is being used to run computational processes
we interact with other sections of the neural network via our inputs and outputs with a virtual reality that the overall reality creates as a medium for our interaction
this is when we communicate, either verbally, or by moving objects, such as textually or with other signs
were all smaller networks in a biggr one
when we die
our neural network stops simulating our personal virtual reality, and stops referecning with the overall one
it begins to download it's calculations into the overall mainframe of our universe
once it has completed this, it becomes a part of a greater section of the neural network
that is set to the task of processing this date
this is basically the consciousness of our universe
in time, the neural network might get reassigned to another part of it to continue a new process
here is another tie in with buddhism
the neural network is not consistent in it;s quality
so it assigns the best parts of it to the most important tasks
the worst parts get the lower tasks
right, we are in the network of life, that is simulating our 'physical' 'material' reality (that is actually virtual).
nirvana is when we become conscious of the overall consciousness, and move into it
can we reach the universal consciusness without dying? it might be possible if a particular section of the network performs outstandingly it rewritees the universe to move it into better purposes
so thats when we become a part of the overall process of the universe
what is the goals of the performance
maybe to find the meaning of life? who knows. I dont think we can in our level of consciousness. maybe only the multiversal consciousness knows the real purpose. maybe the multiverse is contained in a multiverse and it goes on recusively for at least a while
maybe only the highest level knows the real goals
maybe even they dont
afterall, we are talking about interaction between neural networks that can run the same equation and get different results
you may be aware that in child psychology they have shown that very young children interact with their experiences along pretty much scientific principles of experimentation and reproduction of results
once we learn language, we have a new source for information than our own computational processes
our computational processes running on their scientific basis recognise the benefits of this source, and so seek it out. However, as society stands children are taught very early on about authority and obedience
authority varies, but it has some common principles
that to gain new beneficial information, one has to accept blindly the validity of certain behaviours (where behaviour can include expressing or holding beliefs)
and also the stick and the carrot
if you do not comply in believing, then they employ this method. Your scientific principles tell you to do something that gives positive results, and avoid things that give negative results
this is where it relates to the previous conjecture on the nature of the universe
it is the case that because the neural networks get different results
to gain some form of co-ordination it requires authority
on whether they are capable of coming to the same conclusions when enacting computational processes, i.e. they have to agree complicitly on a wide plethora of matters this is what authority simulates because we act as if we do agree even though we dont
if we were able to find a set of inputs that lead to the same outputs, we would have found grounds for agreement. Basically, im talking about the meaning of life
because if we have a set of principles that cannot be doubted by human minds, then we would not have to force one of the plethora of conjectures on our children, we could communicate it, and they would develop in their neural processes almost optimally
though the authority and obedience paradigms are accepted, and then hinder the scientific paradigm of learning, the scientific paradigm is reintroduced later in life once it can be set into the context of the reinforced (by this time) overall paradigms of authority and obedience. Such that though a person is capable of rational doubt, they have an enourmas set of material to work through with
their doubt once they gain it, and they cannot get to the root point without an awful lot of introspection
because only introspection leads to the real truth
information from the outside cannot be trusted unless verified by information from the inside.
this is what meditation is for in buddhism and why buddhist monks contemplate the universe
i remember someone said that in the past it was noted that great buddhist sages agreed on an incredible number of matters, whilst lower sages tended to disagree more the lower down you went
maybe early on the universal consciousness realised it needed authority, but it was flawed, so it set some of its neural networks to try and work out other means of running the comnunication i.e. a search for universal or indubitable knowledge