Mallowram

The problem is that language doesn't produce itself. Re-checking, correcting error is not relevant. Error minimization is not the fount of survival, remaining variable for tasks is. The lossy encyclopedia is neither here nor there, it's a mistaken path:

"Language, Halliday argues, "cannot be equated with 'the set of all grammatical sentences', whether that set is conceived of as finite or infinite". He rejects the use of formal logic in linguistic theories as "irrelevant to the understanding of language" and the use of such approaches as "disastrous for linguistics"."

Yes, it's discarding attention in favor or removing the already false state of attention embedded in every arbitrary unit (word, image, sentence). Attention itself is a false reduction. Attention of attention is an invitation to total illusions of events.

Attention is a false reduction, LLMs are using arbitrary units like words, images and sentences that come embedded with intentional states that are post hoc retrofits to real events. Attention has already been falsely coded by the arbitrary representation in a word or image. It's done the false coding, it comes embedded with the mistaken bias. How come coders never deciphered this very obvious illusory artifact in each word?

This is like saying we're going to weave carpets from already woven carpets. Attention wasn't the core or key to the problem, it was finding out a way to disentangle the embedded intents and discover what's really happening in the arbitrary.

The results might work as a magic trick for a bit, but they unravel eventually. The whole shebang is a magic act posing as inference, learning, intelligence, reasoning. None of these things are really happening because they don't do to the source or are about the actual behavior, it's a short-cut hack.

Attention is not fundamental to survival or cognition. It's developing action-routines in neural-syntax from noticing subtle shifts, differences. Imagination is in the unconscious wordless uploading of sense, memory, emotion into a blackboard where time is excluded and spatial is played. These post-hoc computations of attention are inherently biased to enforced noticing. Notice how passive the data-stimulus is, as if it's just there to be paid attention to.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31489566/

The Scott Alexander trick of "let me tell you a story" should be a warning sign of an inability to parse the issues scientifically. AI is staring at failure in a general sense and is correlated with actual death and dysregulation. Pretending to know the causes or pretending there's no actual problem related to the units automated is simply propaganda.

Just an experiment to see how lost the CS community is at the AI psychosis threshold. The industry has simply no clue to what it's automating in arbitrary words. Unless you all grasp the dimensions of the problem, the industry is a dinosaur. And this Alexander wand-waving ignores the basic scientific problem, waved away in cog-sci fantasies. The fact is language is a dinosaur. It's Pleistocene nonsense, and it should be a warning these Chat suicides and psychosis of what's yet to come if we continue using arbitrary language as a stand-in for human thought. It becomes more obvious with every stage of acceleration and now automation.

It only makes sense to scientific thinkers who think in correlation, and know how degraded words and sentences are. Anyone who accepts word statements as valid is at loss. The only role of language is to refute itself.

Words don't represent thoughts in any way shape or form. They externalize bias as a pretext to communication, which is arbitary. Every word is a metaphor, every word is mythological. These are empirical facts developed from Aristotle, Cassirer, Halliday into Fedorenko, yet CS takes not note of it. Language has no form that refers or represents anything in reality in any sense of concatenation. They are gibberish. This is where humanity is off the rails. Word statements are only 'about' status, dominance, control. Statements in arbitrary words do not exist as references or representations. A statement like which person makes more accurate predictions is basically nonsense, it's applying arbitrary values to events subjectively. Once we understand prediction has nothing to do with how brains work, it's basically an animal that has no relationship to others or itself except as to extract value and control. The argument is simply over your head unless you grasp the fundamentals: words do not work. Please don't pretend others don't grasp these ideas, brilliant minds have been dissecting the illusions of words since Aristotle. "Marshall McLuhan's idea of the "schizophrenic alphabet" is a provocative metaphor for his theory that the phonetic alphabet fundamentally altered human consciousness, leading to a fragmented, detached, and individualistic psychology."

That's irrelevant. Cog-sci is largely folk psychology, and the problems in automating inference in AI demonstrate the model would eventually collapse. Question is how do we toss this model aside for an irreducible form of post-symbolic relationship between brains and machines?

First off, we don't use predictions, that's another model, it's false (Spontaneous Brain Northoff or read Mofakham's papers).

In terms of words, they barely represent and never reference. Any statement like that serves primarily status gain, not know knowledge transmission (I proved this from the first statement above as well).

The reality is CS built a math model from totally false premises as it relates to communication and knowledge. It works for efficient value trading using symbols in place of actions. Does it have a future, no.

The problem is how do we shift to a real neurodynamic system of sharing?

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cXtU97SCjxaHCrf8UVeQGYaj...

Doesn't require models in dynamics, coordination or otherwise.

The brain is oscillatory and dynamic, everything is in there. It's lossless. The analog nature of compression is limitless. This system if you can call it that, is inseparable from the universe ("The World"). Everything in the model-free system is specific. Nothing is arbitrary here. It's merely idiosyncratic. Words are the other end of this: post-hoc, separate from thought, arbitrary, massively illusory. Language is completely irrelevant to consciousness and is the main reason we cannot acheive it. The slogan for humans should be words anonymous.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27096882/

The problem is, neurobiology proves there are no world models. Silicon Valley bet on the wrong cognition model, a psychological version trapped in 20th C bunk, and everyone pays the price listening to cult leaders like Scott Alexander worm their way out of consciousness.

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7415918/

There are no models in our brains/minds. Claiming so is like witchcraft. The brain is about tasks. Reason comes from path integrations, short-cuts. The reduction you're using is narrative. Language is social, not communication. It is the illlusion. Anything arbitrary LIKE language is here to destroy us and our path integrations. Know the externalization problem.

There are no such things as world models, the term is a cheap trick of language. The world is irreducible, he brain never reduces, it has no models. Even the hippocampus uses topology as a bypass to reduction.

These blind as a bat Codex pieces are the hamster wheel of silicon valley, he never gets at the problems, which are ad hoc, and only addresses them as post hoc.

Language is FOR deception, this is its endstate, and a particularly juicy one where language is used to pretend the problems aren't related to langauge.

This is all pyschological high comedy. Hide the source of psychosis when it stares us right in the face.

>>First, much like LLMs, lots of people don’t really have world models. They believe what their friends believe, or what has good epistemic vibes.

First of all, there are no such things as world models, this is more engineering sloganeering. A world model is an oxymoronic paradox. The world is irreducible. The brain doesn't require them for various reasons only seen in neurobiology.

There are no such things as beliefs, we can't find them in the brain. (Start with Stitch and work your way into the Hippocampus. What we have instead of them are tasks, and task demands vary, pretty simple).

Finally, this notion of psychosis is inherent in us using language, that's all. Language doesn't produce itself. It never has to, it's arbitrary. It's a fantasy. There is no epistemological good path with words, ultimately they're not about communication, they're about the dark matter of simian biases. The brain doesn't think in words, we externalize them separately from thought.

Rants like Alexander's are trapped in the cog-sci-psy past, where intent is set behind actions. This is the fantasy that built AI. It's nonsense. The only valid sci construct is neurobiology. Subtract the intention. The brain made us, not our will.

btw what this means neurobiologically/neurodynamically is that arbitrary language's only function is to refute itself. That is its only form of reasoning or logic in grammar. It's only a temporary palliative that eventually gets revealed (AI does a great job of this, better that media or the web) that embeds simian bias seamlessly. It demands a direct, concatenated, irreducible form of signaling.

Stick to tumor detection.

The clearest direct claim is if there are no contradictions then language is impossible.

Language is not a "reflection of reality" in any way shape or form: reality is always specific, language is always arbitrary.

We're currently in a neurodynamic/neurobiological overthrow of psychodynamic principles that obviates in presocrats onwards.

The fact is language has nothing really to do with reality and has only to do with subjective biases that arbitrarily perform gibberish in the stead of status-gain, control, etc (pick any primate bias that Aristotle onwards was unconscious to).

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024

The problem of the GEB is it's containment in symbols. Godel was unaware of the the potential for direct perception, and ecological psychology, and coordination dynamics. All three are possible non-contradictory paths to direct perception. Time to put math aside and search for new possibility.

As humans don't think in language, ie, there is no direct contact between what we think we think, and how we externalize what we think we think arbitrarily, empirically language is primarily about these biases and only secondarily about communication. This is, again, the Achilles hell of CS, NLP, generative linguistics. It's impossible for anyone to disagree with this function of language since 2016. The role for LLMs to operate language is zilch, as you admit LLMs can't uncover this, train, align this out of function.

“We refute (based on empirical evidence) claims that humans use linguistic representations to think.” Ev Fedorenko Language Lab MIT 2024

This is an idealized fantasy of language. Language is primarily about patriarchal dominance, control, status, mate-selection, topophilia, and secondarily about communicating ideas. The dark matter of language is expressed in mythological ideas like states, property, law, etc. People are starting to notice we can't solve very simple problems like climate extinction. How the primary forms in language are status oriented.

words, symbols, sentences, tokens, all are arbitrary. They stay arbitrary unless there is an irrefutable target like a tumor. This is the basis of CS

btw - this is the Achilles heel to CS "Nothing is specific to neural networks." Pretty fascinating that the illusion of counting, math, algebra will all ne superseded by measurement in analog, a measurement that requires no math, simply differences in syntax. How we code that is up for grabs. How did all these math-heads take control of reality through counting? Really a bonkers group of capitalists had nothing to do except dominate by counted value. Rather insane.

No my approach is there is no model. Nothing is reducible. It's a neurodynamic approach. The idea of a world model is oxymoronic, the brain doesn't reduce anything to models, making math and logic irrelevant. Nothing you are talking about is really a first principle, how can it be, it's retrofitted using symbols. Yours is a psychodynamic approach, the post-hoc representations brains create is enough for you. You expect reason to be the threshold. I see no reasons for anything, simply actions. The computer I expect uses no math.

Arguments are all built in neural-syntax specifics. How they externalize as arbitrary points is largely irrelevant, which demonstrates how humans go extinct: confusing the two. The basic 'fact' is words and the conduit metaphor paradox are never resolvable, they are inherently contradictory, which makes words almost entirely irrelevant, and gibberish. AI can never solve this because CS never began at first principles. In essence, AI is the most advanced demonstration of language's total irrelevance.

If you don't grasp the basic ideas of paradox questioning the nature of language beginning in presocratics and winding their way through Aristotle, Socrates, Kant Hume and many others and also appearing in Advaita Vedanta (eg Nisargadatta), then I'm afraid staring here isn't really going to help you. Philosophy has ben questioning whether language is valid from the start. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-noncontradictio...

the disintegration of the federal government.

Aristotle: There are no contradictions.

Cassirer: “Only when we put away words will be able to reach the initial conditions, only then will we have direct perception. All linguistic denotation is essentially ambiguous–and in this ambiguity, this “paronymia” of words is the source of all myths…this self-deception is rooted in language, which is forever making a game of the human mind, ever ensnaring it in that iridescent play of meanings…even theoretical knowledge becomes phantasmagoria; for even knowledge can never reproduce the true nature of things as they are but must frame their essence in “concepts.” Consequently all schemata which science evolves in order to classify, organize and summarize the phenomena of the real, turns out to be nothing but arbitrary schemes. So knowledge, as well as myth, language, and art, has been reduced to a kind of fiction–a fiction that recommends its usefulness, but must not be measured by any strict standard of truth, if it is not to melt away into nothingness.” Cassirer Language and Myth