mmm… well I don’t agree but I haven’t written up that part of the story so I can’t make a detailed case
-
-
Replying to @Meaningness @Plinz
I think you may be making the mistake of supposing that meanings have locations, and since they are not in things, must be in brains
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
no, minds are software; they have no locations in a spatial sense
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @Plinz
yes, that’s part of it! But meanings are not in minds either.They are “in” patterns of interaction that cross individuals’ boundaries
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes -
Replying to @Meaningness
these patterns only exist as the projections of individual minds, but yes they relate the individual to (projected) systems
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
Not sure what you mean by “projection”. They are objectively observable: people stop when the light turns red.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
they stop when their neocortices create a dream of red lights infused by relevance generated by their motivational systems
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @Plinz
why a “dream” rather than an accurate sensory perception?
3 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Meaningness
the universe does not contain red lights, these are inventions of your brain to predict next bit vector of your sensory neurons
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
not really; Solomonoff understood it in the 1960ies, it's pretty standard AI metaphysics now I think
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.