Simulation of Uncertain Things

[LatinasAreTheFuture]

A new one.

Abstract: I attempt to continue my discussion of the abstract nature of thought.

Plaintext:

Spoiler

Simulation of Uncertain Things

Alex Buckley
Central Organizer of New General Management

1/31/25

Dedicated to the Kiwi Farms

I have previously made clear my model of interpreted knowledge. I have left open the problem of communication between actors with no sure means of a physics based signal transmission. I will show my solution to that here.

Telepathy and the Nature of Mind

I propose a telepathic model for the communication of understood thought. The main principles are straightforward:

The transmitting actor already knows what needs to be communicated.
A channel is needed that is capable of conducting the complex translations of communication.
The transmitter is aware of how, across all this different complexity, a signal, or message, may be interpreted by its recipient.

I am here defining telepathy as a moment of shared recognition.

Very simply, the sender of a message needs to be cognizant, not only of how the signal will be transmitted along routes that do not contain the original structure of that message, but also how this qualitatively changed signal will be interpreted by its receiver. All communication involves distortion: but meaning survives if the recipient already knows how to reconstruct it.

Further, I suggest that minds are all related in a very intimate way, and that minds recognize each other as being similar to themselves. This follows from a more fundamental substantial-ontological model that I will elaborate on elsewhere.

Transmission does not require preserving the original signal but ensuring that the altered signal is still recognizable to the recipient. When one actor wishes another to view some thing in the same way, he simply needs to remind the other of a previous instance they both remember. The key to communication is not in transmitting information directly but triggering recognition from the recipient. Shared “abstract structure” between minds is our object of discussion.

Simulation

But what if there is communication between unfamiliar minds? How could someone communicate something to another who is not of a similar mind set?
The answer is simulation.

In such a case, the transmitting actor needs to simulate for himself, using his own mental resources, by his system of known things and its economy of thought, in constructing a simulation, or maybe multiple simulations, of what may happen when he sends a message. The transmitting agent needs to use their own mental resources and knowledge in modeling how the message might be received.

It's also expected, although not necessarily required, that the receiving agent be somewhat aware of the abstract nature of messages, and the possible need for interpreting a signal if one is received without an obvious procedure. That's really the key: when transmitting a message we want the recipient to perform an operation without really even thinking about the message or its mechanism of transmission; we want them to have assumed they already understand our implication.

Uncertainty

Everything that I have proposed above is very uncertain.

What if the message is not transmitted properly? What if it is not received? What if it is misinterpreted? What if.

There is no remedy for uncertainty. It is simply a fact of life. The so-called “new physics” failed to adapt to such natural phenomena, and we see their failure today. Obviously, I reject a deterministic or computational view of reality. We must guess, and have nothing to do but that.

 

[We Are The Witches]

I see you posting these, what is this supposed to be? Who is Alex Buckley?

Guess I'll entertain this to some degree and add something, just for fun.

---

You're talking about telepathy and basically linking thoughts; the transmitter won't know how the recipient will interpret the info, just how they might, unless they have major control over the recipient, because there is not only "distorion of the message", but "distortion of the recipient", i.e: the message may be intact or well put together, but the "decoder" might not.

On another thought, the question you'd need to ask yourself is what degree of "meaningfulness" you want your message to have, and if after being transmitted, it still retains it, which may vary with every example. On one hand, let's say you want to transmit the image of a grassland with certain elements to it, like trees on the right, but the meaningfulness of this only spans for the general view of the grassland to be projected, if you lose the details of the trees on the right, it doesn't really matter; on another hand, the trees on the right are also an integral part of the message, and you losing it means that your message is no longer meaningful, so same scenario, but different standard for what is meaningful or not.

On a final thought, you're not distinguishing between the types of information you want to transmit, although at some point everything blends together. You may send a signal to someone to lift their right arm, and that will suffice without much complexity, but you may also want to send the feeling or qualia of the color green, you yourself feel, to the recipient, and so that they experience it as you did. In such case the complexity raises, because this would require you both feeling the same type of qualia, which would require you both having a similar structure in your encoder/decoders (brains) to process this equally/similarly.

It's not clear why you'd reject a deterministic point of view on reality from this, everything you've said here is possible through determinism and materialism, even when you include qualia.

 

[LatinasAreTheFuture]

It's not clear why you'd reject a deterministic point of view on reality from this, everything you've said here is possible through determinism and materialism, even when you include qualia.

Its possible that I don't know enough about these subjects, especially as regards qualia which I have never looked at. I reject determinism, in general, because I imagine that the universe is to a really very great degree "open". I very much appreciate your interpretation: its very good. Thanks.

And yes, the mind control would have to be like, really very serious.