Conversation
Replying to
@_100101890 @InfiniteSynths what do you need to study to even begin to understand this?
2
2
Replying to
@_100101890 easy in principle: these are thought forms, but not language (they don't parse back unambiguously)
2
1
4
Replying to
@_100101890 you 'only' need to emulate the way of thinking that leads to these (which is hard given insufficient information)
3
1
3
Replying to
1
Replying to
@_100101890 speaking of formal I have a few notes on a formal-ish understanding of that!
1
1
Replying to
@_100101890 I was trying to tame the concept of a mind's inside/outside view and whether they were really irreconcilable
1
1
Replying to
@_100101890 turns out qualia (inside view) is fully transferrable iff the part lost in communication is the part the receiver adds again
1
1
1
Replying to
@_100101890 and you can very carefully choose the part not communicated but transferred (your "absence of sufficiency")
Replying to
@_100101890 this is very much a WIP though and could be full of holes, or some idealist could already have expressed it 200 years before me
Replying to
under a whole boatload of constraints, just not of the standard kind (ie. mostly ampliative)
1
Replying to
except the maximal degree (0) of amplification turns out to be (prior) exhaustion
1
Show replies